*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 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

5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE 

6 PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER 

7 PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 

8 RIN 2070-AJ22 

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

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 Prepared by 

26 

27 BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION 

28 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 

29 

30 

31 

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

33 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

34 Washington, DC 20460 

35 

36 

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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 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

39 Table of Contents 

40 

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

42 Chapter 1.  Introduction................................................................................................................................6

43 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................6

44 1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................................... 7

45 1.2.1   Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure......................................................................................... 8

46 1.2.2   Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure.................................................................................... 11

47 1.2.3 Market Failure..................................................................................................................... 12

48 1.3 Affected Communities ................................................................................................................ 14

49 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees....................................................................................................... 14

50 1.3.2   Regulated Entities .............................................................................................................. 15

51 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation .............................................................................................. 16

52 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation............................................................................................... 17

53 1.4.2 Statutory Authority ............................................................................................................. 18

54 Chapter 2.  Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS............................................................................. 19

55 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety ......................................................... 20

56 2.1.1 Non‐regulatory Approaches................................................................................................ 20

57 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches....................................................................................................... 21

58 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers ............................................... 22

59 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options ....................................................................................... 22

60 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options......................................................................................... 31

61 2.2.3 Notification Options............................................................................................................ 34

62 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers.................................................................. 42

63 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options........................................................................................................ 42

64 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions............................................................................................. 43

65 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment....................................................................... 47

66 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure ............................................................... 49

67 2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options....................................................................................... 49

68 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response....................................................................................... 51

69 Chapter 3.  Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options............................................................................................ 54

70 3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................54
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

4 

71 3.2. Regional Groupings..................................................................................................................... 55

72 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements.................................................................................................. 57

73 3.3.1 General Methodology ......................................................................................................... 57

74 3.3.2 General Data ....................................................................................................................... 60

75 3.3.3 Training ............................................................................................................................... 68

76 3.3.4 Hazard Communication....................................................................................................... 84

77 3.3.5 Notification ......................................................................................................................... 89

78 3.3.5 Age ......................................................................................................................................96

79 3.3.6 Entry ..................................................................................................................................100

80 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)............................................................................... 104

81 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies................................................................................................ 109

82 3.3.9 Emergency Response ........................................................................................................ 111

83 Chapter 4.  Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements ...................................................................... 113

84 4.1 Training Options........................................................................................................................ 114

85 4.1.1 TRAIN‐01 vs TRAIN‐02:  Immediate worker training......................................................... 114

86 4.1.2 TRAIN‐03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN‐12 vs 13:  Frequency of worker and handler training ....115

87 4.1.3 TRAIN‐06 vs 07 / TRAIN‐14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training .116

88 4.1.4 TRAIN‐08 vs 09:  Increase worker trainer competency standards....................................116

89 4.1.5 TRAIN‐10 vs 11 / TRAIN‐16 vs 17:  Record keeping .......................................................... 117

90 4.1.6 TRAIN‐20 vs 18 and 19:  Training verification................................................................... 117

91 4.2   Hazard Communication Options............................................................................................... 118

92 4.2.1 HAZCOM‐01: Availability of application‐specific information ..........................................118

93 4.2.2 HAZCOM‐02 vs 03 and 04:  Pesticide‐specific Hazard Communication Materials............119

94 4.2.3   HAZCOM‐05 vs 06:  Recordkeeping and Retention .......................................................... 119

95 4.2.4 HAZCOM‐07: Registrant‐produced crop sheets................................................................ 120

96 4.3 Notification Options.................................................................................................................. 120

97 4.3.1 NOTIFY‐01 vs 02:  Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production ...........................120

98 4.3.2 NOTIFY‐03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production .............................121

99 4.3.3 NOTIFY‐04 and NOTIFY‐05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification .......................................121

100 4.3.4 NOTIFY‐06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs....................................................................... 121

101 4.3.4 NOTIFY‐08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign .................................................................... 122

102 4.3.6 NOTIFY‐10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks.............122
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

5 

103 4.3.7 NOTIFY‐12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks.................................................... 122

104 4.3.8 NOTIFY‐14:  Revise safety display ..................................................................................... 123

105 4.3.9 NOTIFY‐15 and 16 vs 17:  Number and location of safety displays ..................................123

106 4.3.10 NOTIFY‐18:  Notification by commercial applicators........................................................ 124

107 4.4 Age Requirement Options......................................................................................................... 124

108 4.4.1 AGE‐01:  Minimum age for early entry activities.............................................................. 124

109 4.4.2 AGE‐03:  Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides................................................125

110 4.5   Entry Restriction Options.......................................................................................................... 125

111 4.5.1 ENTRY‐01 and 02:  Entry restricted areas......................................................................... 125

112 4.5.2 ENTRY‐03 vs 04 and 05:  Duration of Early Entry Activities..............................................126

113 4.5.3 ENTRY‐06 vs 07:  Cholinesterase Inhibition ...................................................................... 127

114 4.6   PPE Options............................................................................................................................... 127

115 4.6.1 PPE‐01:  Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE ...............127

116 4.6.2 PPE‐02 and PPE‐03:  Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs .128

117 4.6.3 PPE‐04:  Standards for closed system exceptions............................................................. 128

118 4.6.4 PPE‐05:  Render contaminated PPE unwearable .............................................................. 129

119 4.7   Decontamination Supply Options............................................................................................. 129

120 4.7.1 SUPPLY‐01 and SUPPLY‐02:  Decontamination supplies for workers...............................129

121 4.7.2 SUPPLY‐03 vs 04:  Decontamination supplies for handlers..............................................130

122 4.7.3 SUPPLY‐05 vs 06:  Emergency eye flushing....................................................................... 131

123 4.8   Emergency Assistance Options................................................................................................. 131

124 Chapter 5.  Costs of Proposed Rule........................................................................................................... 133

125 5.1 General Methodology ............................................................................................................... 135

126 5.2 Cost Estimation ......................................................................................................................... 139

127 5.2.1 Training Component ......................................................................................................... 139

128 5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components.................................................... 149

129 5.2.3 Protect Component:  Age, Entry, and PPE ........................................................................ 152

130 5.2.4 Mitigate Component:  Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance................154

131 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule.............................................................................................. 156

132 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment.............................................................................................. 159

133 5.4 Small Business Impacts............................................................................................................. 160

134 5.4.1 Industry Profile.................................................................................................................. 161
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

6 

135 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost......................................................................... 163

136 Chapter 6.  Benefits of Proposed Rule...................................................................................................... 166

137 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified............................................................................................ 167

138 6.2. Who is at Risk? .......................................................................................................................... 168

139 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture ................................................................................... 168

140 6.2.2. Children and families ........................................................................................................ 168

141 6.3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families.................................171

142 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects............................................................................................. 171

143 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families................................172

144 6.4. Non‐Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents ..................................176

145 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents............................................176

146 6.5.1. Methodology and Data ..................................................................................................... 177

147 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents................................................................... 178

148 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided .............................................................................................. 183

149 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided ............................................................................................... 186

150 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers.............197

151 6.6.1. Cancer Risks ...................................................................................................................... 200

152 6.6.2. Non‐Cancer Health Effects................................................................................................ 203

153 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks.......................................................................... 204

154 6.7. Non‐Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks..................................................205

155 6.8. Break‐Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks.............................................206

156 6.8.1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 206

157 6.8.2. Method ............................................................................................................................. 208

158 6.8.3. Data...................................................................................................................................209

159 6.8.4. Break‐Even Estimation...................................................................................................... 214

160 6.8.5. Break‐Even Conclusions.................................................................................................... 218

161 Chapter 7.  Paperwork Burden ................................................................................................................. 219

162 Accounting Statement .............................................................................................................................. 220

163 References ................................................................................................................................................222

164 

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

1 

166 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

167 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 

168 

169 

170 Executive Summary 

171 

172 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

180 development of the proposal. 

181 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

196 

197 Market Failure 

198 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

207 hazards of excess pesticide exposure. 

208 

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

210 reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 at minimum cost. 

219 

220 Costs and Benefits 

221 

222 EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $61.9 and $72.4 

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

224 rule is estimated to cost between $60.8 and $73.1 million per year. These costs are almost 

225 entirely borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides, which 

226 account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United States. The 

227 approximately 2,800 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are contracted to 

228 apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost between $170 and $190 per year per firm. 

229 Minor costs of less than $60 to $80 per year may be faced by family farms that use pesticides 

230 and by self-employed commercial applicators, respectively. These costs amount to an average 

231 expenditure of about $30 per year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to 

232 pesticides, will accrue to a broader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in 

233 terms of avoided costs associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in 

234 chronic diseases associated with occupational pesticide exposure. Costs and benefits are 

235 summarized in Table 1. 

236 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

246 $58.8 million per year. 

247 

248 Costs 

249 

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

251 estimates that large farms, defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales, will incur costs of 

252 $330 to $390 per year, on average, using a 3% discount rate. Smaller operations are estimated to 

253 incur costs between $125 and $150 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent 

254 of average annual revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact 

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

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

3 

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

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

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

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

261 be expected to have an impact on job availability. 

262 

263 Benefits 

264 

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

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

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

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

269 transport of pesticide residues home. Self-employed pesticide handlers, including members of 

270 farm families who apply pesticides, will also benefit from reductions in pesticide exposures. 

271 

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

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

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

275 reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer276 reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public 

277 health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

278 

279 Benefits from Avoiding Occupational Incidents

280 

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

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

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

284 annually. However, this estimate is biased downward by an unknown, but potentially significant 

285 degree. First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because 

286 sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly 

287 diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database. The effect of underreporting 

288 can be significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range of estimates in the 

289 literature), the quantifiable benefits of the rule would be about $11.3 million annually. Second, 

290 our approach only measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to 

291 avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. 

292 

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

294 to pesticides, but there are well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic 

295 health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the 

296 proposed requirements will result in long term health benefits to the 2.3 million agricultural 

297 workers and pesticide handlers. These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk of pesticide 

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

299 healthier society and better quality of life. 

300 

301 Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

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

4 

303 The difference between the estimated cost of the rule, $75.1 million per year, and the estimated 

304 benefits from avoiding acute incidents, $11.4 million per year, is $63.7 million per year. EPA 

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

306 cancer, by only 0.8 percent within the farmworker community would be sufficient to generate 

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

308 show higher incidence rates of these diseases than similar populations with little or no chronic 

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

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

311 dissemination of information about pesticides used on-farm, and greater protection from 

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

313 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

322 

323 Table 1. Benefits and Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 

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 treatment and loss of productivity

 Reduced latent effect of avoided 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 

325 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

326 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 

327 

328 Chapter 1. Introduction 

329 

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

331 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 

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

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

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

335 was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992. 

336 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

349 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

357 

358 1.1 Background 

359 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

369 or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

7 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

379 

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

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

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

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

384 exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non385 target organisms. In principle, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they 

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

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

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

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

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

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

392 

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

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

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

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

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

398 

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

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

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

402 exposures. 

403 

404 1.2 Problem Statement 

405 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

413 2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, 

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

415 occupational cases, not only those where WPS is applicable. An EPA review of another dataset 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

8 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

429 

430 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure 

431 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

445 

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

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

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

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

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

451 agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non452 agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 

453 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance 

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

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

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

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

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

459 by inhalation and eye contact. 

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

9 

461 Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees 

462 

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

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

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

466 working on farms. 

467 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

485 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

493 pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non494 farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

506 and residues in vehicles, which suggest the takehome pathway is the source for the residues. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

10 

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

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

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

510 

511 Adolescent workers and handlers 

512 

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

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

515 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

527 et al., 2010). 528 

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

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

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

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

533 

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

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

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

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

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

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

540 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

550 2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more time for any delayed health 

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

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

11 

553 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure 

554 

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

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

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

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

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

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

561 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

570 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

578 cancer. 

579 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

587 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 

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

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

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

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

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

603 

604 1.2.3 Market Failure 

605 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

615 pesticide exposure. 

616 

617 Incomplete Information 

618 

619 Incomplete information may be the most critical problem leading to avoidable pesticide 

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

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

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

623 Incomplete information arises in two ways. 

624 

625 First, there may be barriers to obtaining the information. Many who are employed in agriculture, 

626 for example, are not native English speakers; an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees 

627 do not speak English (US Department of Labor, 2005). Many are migrant laborers who could 

628 lack access to sources of information, such as familiar extension agents, because they are 

629 frequently away from home, but many workers may not have access, especially internet access, 

630 to convenient, reliable information (US Department of Labor, 2005). These barriers result in 

631 high search costs that can deter agricultural workers and handlers from obtaining information on 

632 their own. Finally, information regarding pesticides and pesticide use may not be available in 

633 the time frame that is required to take appropriate action. 

634 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 

643 

644 Externalities 

645 

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

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

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

649 the social and private costs of using a pesticide. 

650 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

659 

660 Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections 

661 

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

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

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

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

666 knowledge. 

667 

668 Environmental Justice Issues 

669 

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

671 the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 

672 

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

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

675 pesticides over the course of their working life. 

676 

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

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

679 jobs. 

680 

681  Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non682 agricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide 

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

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

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

14 

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

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

688 are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6. 

689 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

703 workers had family incomes below the poverty level. 

704 

705 1.3 Affected Communities 

706 

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

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

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

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

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

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

713 minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations. 

714 

715 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees 

716 

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

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

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

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

721 to pesticide use patterns in forestry. 

722 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

730 pesticides, thus all agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of adverse health effects. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

15 

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

732 exposure is quite low. 

733 

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

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

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

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

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

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

740 and handlers. 

741 

742 1.3.2 Regulated Entities 

743 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

752 pesticides. 

753 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

761 

762 Agricultural Establishments 

763 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

775 personal protective equipment (PPE). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

16 

776 

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

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

779 2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

788 

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

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

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

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

793 forestry operations. 

794 

795 Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments 

796 

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

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

799 2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

809 Association (NAAA, 2008). 

810 

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

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

813 to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007). 

814 

815 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation 

816 

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

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

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

820 EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

17 

821 

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

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

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

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

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

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

828 when they need it. 

829 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

837 

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

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

840 decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements. 

841 

842 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation 

843 

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

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

846 be revised. 

847 

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

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

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

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

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

853 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

863 ways, would be particularly confusing. 

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

18 

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

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

867 entities. 

868 

869 1.4.2 Statutory Authority 

870 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

879 pesticides. 

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

19 

881 Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS 

882 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

890 exposure. 

891 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

901 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

916 selection of the final proposed options. 

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

20 

918 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 

919 

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

921  protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural worker protection regulation 

922 and support activities; 

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

924 applicators; and 

925  the national health care providers’ pesticide initiative. 

926 

927 2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches 

928 

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

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

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

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

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

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

935 community. 

936 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

949 

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

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

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

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

954 rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6. 

955 

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

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

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

959 appropriate languages and complexity. 

960 

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

962 pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

21 

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

964 services in each state. 

965 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

977 continuing education opportunities. 

978 

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

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

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

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

983 worker safety. 

984 

985 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches 

986 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

994 assessments, including occupational risk assessments. 

995 

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

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

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

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

1000 notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables 

1001 workers and handlers to protect themselves and their families, to provide supplies to be used to 

1002 mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or 

1003 handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all 

1004 agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and 

1005 consistently covered in regulation. 

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

22 

1007 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers 

1008 

1009 EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training, hazard communication, 

1010 and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers 

1011 related to pesticide exposure. These measures work together to provide workers with important 

1012 information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions. 

1013 Changes to the pesticide safety training requirements will increase worker and handler 

1014 understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to 

1015 protect themselves and their families. Hazard communication requirements make application1016 specific and pesticide-specific information available when needed. Notification includes 

1017 measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide-treated areas and that reinforce pesticide 

1018 safety training. Better hazard communication and notification imparts more appropriate 

1019 information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper 

1020 protective measures when necessary. 

1021 

1022 For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current, proposed, 

1023 and alternative requirements is presented. Note that one alternative is to leave the current 

1024 requirements in place. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative 

1025 discussion of expected benefits as well as any disadvantages. For each of the possible 

1026 modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN-04). These indicators are also used in 

1027 Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete details on the 

1028 regulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM. 

1029 

1030 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options 

1031 

1032 Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers 

1033 may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure to pesticides, and what to do if 

1034 exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, 

1035 such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include 

1036 recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications. 

1037 

1038 Worker Training 

1039 

1040 Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 

1041 that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot 

1042 be provided before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training 

1043 consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. 

1044 Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training 

1045 content and trainer qualifications. Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements 

1046 and the potential changes EPA has considered. 

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

23 

1048 Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Worker Training Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Worker Training Grace Period

Untrained workers must 

receive, at a minimum, 

abbreviated training before 

they enter a treated area. Full 

safety training is required 

before the sixth day of entry 

into the treated area.

Untrained workers must receive 

full training prior to entry into a 

treated area. An exception is 

available for a 2-day grace period 

with provision of essential Rightto-Know information prior to 

field entry. The full pesticide 

safety training would be required 

before the third day of field 

entry.

(TRAIN-02)

Require full training prior to 

entry into a treated area. 

(TRAIN-01)

Worker Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required: 

(TRAIN-03)

Biennial training required: 

(TRAIN-04) 

or 

Annual training with exception 

for WPS farms with < 10 

employees, no worker turnover, 

and no change in application 

information 

(TRAIN-05)

Training Content for Workers 

11 basic pesticide safety training 

points covered 

1. Possible exposures. 

2. Hazards. 

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body. 

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning. 

5. Emergency first aid for 

poisonings. 

6. Obtaining medical care. 

7. Decontamination procedures. 

8. Hazards from chemigation and 

drift. 

9. Hazards from residues on 

clothing. 

10.Warnings about taking 

pesticides or pesticide 

containers home. 

11.WPS requirements. 

Expand 11 basic safety training 

requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard 

information – SDS

(TRAIN-06) 

Further expand 11 basic safety 

training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification 

 Understanding hazard 

information – crop sheets and 

product-specific training

(TRAIN-07)
*** 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, people 

who have completed “Trainthe-trainer” programs, and 

handlers

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

 Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program or

 Are trainers of certified 

applicators

(TRAIN-08) 

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

 Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program

(TRAIN-09)

1049 

1050 

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

1052 

1053 The WPS currently permits a five-day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers 

1054 during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of 

1055 the full pesticide safety training. Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated 

1056 safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training. After five days of entry into a treated 

1057 area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must 

1058 receive full pesticide safety training. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for 

1059 agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers 

1060 was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992. 

1061 

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

1063 

1064 TRAIN-01 

1065 A potential option is to eliminate the grace period and require training of all employees prior to 

1066 their entry into a treated area. The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the 

1067 full safety training prior to entering treated areas, providing workers with the full information 

1068 they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It would also prevent the possibility 

1069 that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working 

1070 more than five days at a time, which may happen, for example, during harvest season. 

1071 Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at 

1072 different times and that a worker may receive duplicative training if he or she changes 

1073 employers. 

1074 

1075 TRAIN-02 

1076 The proposed requirement would require training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an 

1077 exception with a two-day grace period. It would also expand the information provided to 

1078 employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in 

1079 that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never 

1080 receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some 

1081 flexibility for growers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and 

1082 it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings. 

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

25 

1084 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

1085 

1086 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

1087 provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative 

1088 options. 

1089 

1090 TRAIN-03/04 

1091 The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual 

1092 pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement. 

1093 One alternative considered (TRAIN-04) would be to require pesticide safety training every two 

1094 years. Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al. (2000) showed 

1095 that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in 

1096 following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of 

1097 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both 

1098 of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are 

1099 improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn 

1100 leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. Annual training is common practice in 

1101 other industries and not only for safety. For example, the federal government requires annual 

1102 training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity. OSHA requires annual training in 

1103 workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are 

1104 already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in 

1105 pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements. 

1106 

1107 TRAIN-05 

1108 A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 

1109 2008), would be to provide an exception from annual worker training for WPS farms with fewer 

1110 than ten employees if there had been no turnover in the work force and no changes in the 

1111 application information (e.g., pesticides used, application rates) since the last worker safety 

1112 training. This alternative would reduce the burden on small farms (discussed in Chapter 3). The 

1113 exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying 

1114 that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices. As noted above, 

1115 however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does 

1116 not change. 

1117 

1118 Pesticide Safety Training Content 

1119 

1120 Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points: 

1121 (1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs, 

1122 (2) hazards associated with exposure, 

1123 (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

1124 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

1125 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

1126 (6) obtaining medical care, 

1127 (7) decontamination procedures, 

1128 (8) hazards associated with chemigation and spray drift, 

1129 (9) hazards from residues on clothing, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

26 

1130 (10) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and 

1131 (11) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency 

1132 assistance, etc.). 

1133 EPA considered several options for expanding the content of the required worker pesticide safety 

1134 training. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details. 

1135 

1136 TRAIN-06/07 

1137 Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce 

1138 take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights (e.g., to hazard information) and protections (e.g., 

1139 from retaliation), and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that 

1140 have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last 

1141 revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the 

1142 potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS 

1143 requirements, including information to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and 

1144 the availability of hazard communication materials, will help to insure safety measures are 

1145 followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to 

1146 pesticides. The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication. The 

1147 proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see 

1148 HAZCOM-02); the alternative would explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04). 

1149 

1150 Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications 

1151 

1152 Currently, pesticide safety training for workers can be conducted by certified pesticide 

1153 applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an 

1154 approved pesticide safety “train-the-trainer” program. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for 

1155 complete details. 

1156 

1157 TRAIN-08 

1158 The proposed option would eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and handlers. 

1159 The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a 

1160 train-the-trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality 

1161 training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of certified 

1162 applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less 

1163 relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with 

1164 treated plants and other surfaces. Further, without additional preparation, certified applicators 

1165 and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the 

1166 information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally-distinct 

1167 backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified 

1168 trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and 

1169 understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their 

1170 families. 

1171 

1172 TRAIN-09 

1173 An alternative option EPA considered was to restrict qualified trainers to only those who have 

1174 completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program. In comparison to the proposed option, 

1175 this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

27 

1176 

1177 Handler Training 

1178 

1179 WPS provisions for handler safety training are similar to those for workers. Handlers must take 

1180 the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years. The WPS specifies trainer 

1181 qualifications. Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training 

1182 and the potential changes EPA has considered. 

1183 

1184 Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task. No 

1185 grace period is permitted. 

1186 

1187 Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Handler Training Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required: 

(TRAIN-12)

Biennial training required: 

(TRAIN-13)

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered 

1. Product label, including 

safety information 

2. Hazards. 

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body. 

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning. 

5. Emergency first aid. 

6. Emergency medical care 

7. Decontamination procedures 

8. Personal Protective 

Equipment (PPE) 

9. Heat-related illness issues 

10.Safety requirements for 

handling, transporting, 

storing, and disposing of 

pesticides 

11.Environmental concerns 

12.Warnings about taking 

pesticides or their containers 

home 

13.Regulatory requirements of 

handling. 

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

Take home exposure

Early entry notification and age 

limit

Entry restricted area 

requirements 

Requirements for respirator fit 

test, training and medical 

evaluation

Hazard information – SDS

 (TRAIN-14)

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age 

limit

 Entry restricted area 

requirements

Requirements for proper 

respirator fit test, training, and 

medical evaluation

 Hazard information -crop 

specific hazard materials 

product specific training

(TRAIN-15)

1188 

1189 

1190 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency 

1191 

1192 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

1193 provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements. 

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

28 

1195 TRAIN-12/13 

1196 As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety 

1197 training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN-12). The 

1198 alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler training every two years. Similar to training 

1199 frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et 

1200 al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than 

1201 untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. 

1202 Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with 

1203 biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The 

1204 expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide 

1205 exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. 

1206 

1207 Pesticide Safety Training Content 

1208 

1209 Handler training currently covers 14 topics: 

1210 (1) product label information, 

1211 (2) hazards, 

1212 (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

1213 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

1214 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

1215 (6) obtaining medical care, 

1216 (7) decontamination procedures, 

1217 (8) personal protective equipment, 

1218 (9) heat-related illness issues, 

1219 (10) safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

1220 (11) environmental concerns, 

1221 (12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, 

1222 (13) regulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and 

1223 (14) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency 

1224 assistance, etc.). 

1225 EPA considered expanding the content of the required handler pesticide safety training to include 

1226 several additional topics. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details. 

1227 

1228 TRAIN-14/15 

1229 Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, 

1230 handler rights, and new WPS requirements. Benefits would be similar to those of worker 

1231 training. For handler training, the additional components not relevant to workers would be 

1232 defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person enters 

1233 the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on 

1234 respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This 

1235 information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed 

1236 option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the 

1237 alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

29 

1238 

1239 Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification 

1240 

1241 Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and 

1242 handlers receive the required pesticide safety training. This makes it difficult for both employers 

1243 and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training 

1244 requirements. There is, however, an optional program for states to distribute training verification 

1245 cards supplied by EPA to trainers. Agricultural employers in participating states can hire 

1246 workers and handlers with valid training verification cards, which can reduce their pesticide 

1247 safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card. However, there is no 

1248 requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2-3 presents the 

1249 potential requirements. Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed 

1250 requirements in detail. 

1251 

1252 Table 2.2-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Recordkeeping

No Records Required.

Employer to keep records of 

worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker 

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-10) 

Employer to keep worker 

training records for 5 years:

 Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker 

 Date of training 

 Training materials used 

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker 

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-11) 

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 2 years:

 Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of training 

 Date of birth of handler 

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-16) 

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 5 years:

 Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of handler 

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler 

(TRAIN-17) 
*** 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 

1254 Recordkeeping

1255 

1256 TRAIN-10/16 

1257 Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers, employers would be required to document 

1258 pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years. Documentation would include 

1259 the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of 

1260 training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birth, the training materials used, and the employee’s 

1261 signature acknowledging training. 

1262 

1263 TRAIN-11/17 

1264 The second set of options is identical except that records would be maintained for five years. 

1265 

1266 These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear 

1267 method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the five1268 year option over the two-year retention option is that it matches the current five-year training 

1269 cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period 

1270 provides greater benefits than a two-year retention period as enforcement actions may not be 

1271 brought immediately. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed 

1272 EPA that a two-year retention period is adequate. 

1273 

1274 Verification

1275 

1276 TRAIN-17 

1277 This potential requirement would eliminate EPA’s optional verification card system. States 

1278 would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed 

1279 recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. However, state agencies report that verification 

1280 cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering 

1281 and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not 

1282 currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified. 

1283 Finally, with the current five-year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that 

1284 employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current 

1285 system, verification cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee. In fact, 

1286 many states do not participate in the system. 

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

31 

1288 TRAIN-18 

1289 An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when 

1290 they are trained. Card distribution would be conducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards 

1291 with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. 

1292 As noted above, this would have little benefit under the current WPS. Falsified cards and the 

1293 lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and 

1294 for enforcement to determine compliance. However, in conjunction with other potential 

1295 requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if the existing grace period for full 

1296 pesticide safety training is eliminated or shortened (TRAIN-01 and 02), a training verification 

1297 system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are 

1298 in compliance with training requirements. Similarly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN1299 03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or 

1300 falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple 

1301 trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a 

1302 driver’s license-sized card will be too small to contain all the required information, and would 

1303 therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record. 

1304 

1305 TRAIN-19 

1306 The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but does not require the use of the verification cards 

1307 and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained 

1308 employee. In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requirement would be more convenient for original 

1309 employer, who would not have to provide individualized cards to every trained worker. It also 

1310 insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records. It may 

1311 be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to 

1312 another establishment than to carry a wallet-sized card. In addition, the potential for fraud, as 

1313 with TRAIN-18, remains. 

1314 

1315 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options 

1316 

1317 Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with 

1318 application-specific information, including the name of the pesticide used. The information is 

1319 posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI 

1320 expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific information be made available 

1321 and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide-specific information is presented. 

1322 Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requirements for hazard 

1323 communication. 

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

32 

1325 Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Application Specific Information and Availability

Display at a central location, for 

each application, 

 location and description of 

treated area; 

 active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

 time and date of application;

 duration of REI

Make a copy available on 

request, for each application, 

 location and description of 

treated area; 

 crop or site treated

 active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

 time and date application 

started and ended;

 duration and end date of REI

(HAZCOM-01) 

No change from current 

requirements

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability 

No requirements for pesticidespecific hazard information 

Pesticide label and SDS must be 

available 

(HAZCOM-02) 

Pesticide label must be available 

(HAZCOM-03) 

or 

Distribute crop sheet to workers 

and/or handlers upon entry into 

a treated area 

(HAZCOM-04) 

Retention and Recordkeeping 

Application-specific 

information must be displayed 

prior to application and for 30 

days after the REI 

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 2 

years

(HAZCOM-05)

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 5 

years

(HAZCOM-06)

Hazard Information Material

No requirements for use or 

production of crop-specific 

hazard materials

No change from current 

requirements

Registrant to develop crop 

sheets for each WPS product 

and use pattern

(HAZCOM-07)

1326 

1327 Application Specific Information and Availability 

1328 

1329 HAZCOM-01 

1330 Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application-specific 

1331 information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the 

1332 application, and the duration of the REI. The information must be posted before the application 

1333 is made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM1334 01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application-specific information as 

1335 currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The 

1336 addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise 

1337 treated area. Addition of the start and end times for the application, in conjunction with the date, 

1338 would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends. This gives employees more precise 

1339 information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

33 

1340 requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application 

1341 information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. This 

1342 approach to hazard communication has certain advantages over centralized posting. Detailed 

1343 information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at 

1344 a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields 

1345 without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultural employers to 

1346 notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many 

1347 central posting areas are exterior gathering locations and postings are subject to loss or damage 

1348 by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable 

1349 to request the information from their employer. Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more 

1350 complete discussion of this requirement. 

1351 

1352 Pesticide Specific Information and Availability 

1353 

1354 HAZCOM-02 

1355 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the 

1356 SDS. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical 

1357 or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs 

1358 on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA requires 

1359 employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are 

1360 already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than 

1361 pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, 

1362 although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product. 

1363 

1364 In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. 

1365 Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 

1366 treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from the label and, 

1367 especially, the SDS. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 

1368 and speed the diagnosis of an illness. The SDS also provides treatment information. 

1369 

1370 HAZCOM-03 

1371 An alternative would be to require only the pesticide label, but not the SDS. This would at least 

1372 ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a 

1373 proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pesticide. The label, however, 

1374 may not indicate treatment. 

1375 

1376 HAZCOM-04 

1377 Under a second alternative, EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further 

1378 require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and 

1379 handlers upon entry into a pesticide-treated area. The advantage of this approach is that it 

1380 provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, 

1381 reducing the potential for confusion from multiple postings at the central location. However, the 

1382 benefits of this detailed information are uncertain. Such detailed information could potentially 

1383 confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is 

1384 different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing 

1385 workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

34 

1386 is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers 

1387 and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005). Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present 

1388 complex information to this diverse community would be challenging. 

1389 

1390 Retention and Record Keeping 

1391 

1392 HAZCOM-05/06 

1393 These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard 

1394 communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the 

1395 NPRM. As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN-06), the advantage of retaining 

1396 records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both 

1397 the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may 

1398 not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful. 

1399 

1400 Hazard Information Material 

1401 

1402 Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g., the SDS. EPA 

1403 considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical-specific hazard sheets for all 

1404 agricultural products, HAZCOM-07. This requirement would support the option discussed 

1405 above, HAZCOM-04. This information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there 

1406 may be different use patterns on different crops (e.g., application rates) and different potential for 

1407 exposure on different crops (e.g., leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and 

1408 in different activities (e.g., weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not 

1409 clear that this additional information provides substantial benefits. Pesticide safety educators 

1410 have informed EPA that providing very specific and complex information for the agricultural 

1411 worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple 

1412 pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions. 

1413 

1414 2.2.3 Notification Options 

1415 

1416 The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application 

1417 occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when 

1418 precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented. Current notification 

1419 requirements include displaying pesticide application and pesticide safety information in a 

1420 central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry 

1421 Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing workers, and informing workers enter 

1422 areas under a REI about the pesticides used. The WPS also requires certain information 

1423 exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide 

1424 appropriate notification to their respective employees. EPA is considering revising the 

1425 notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted 

1426 entry interval (REI), (2) information on decontamination procedures, and (3) information 

1427 transmitted from commercial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer. 

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

35 

1429 Restricted Entry Interval Notification 

1430 

1431 Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a 

1432 REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Warnings need not be given to a 

1433 particular employee if, from the start of the application to the end of the re-entry interval, the 

1434 employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the 

1435 handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform 

1436 workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used 

1437 unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces. There are currently no 

1438 requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements. 

1439 

1440 EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more 

1441 situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to 

1442 workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure 

1443 compliance. Table 2.2-5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements. 

1444 

1445 Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative REI Notification Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI Notification 

Outdoor production: Either oral 

notification or post warning 

signs unless double notification 

required by label 

Post field with warning signs if 

REI is greater than 48 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 48 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-01)

Post field with warning signs if 

REI is greater than 72 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 72 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-02)

Indoor production (WPS 

Greenhouses): Warning signs 

must be posted; additional oral 

notification for double 

notification products 

Oral notification allowed if REI 

is 4 hours or less 

(NOTIFY-03) 

No change from current 

requirements 

No requirements for record 

keeping 

No change from current 

requirements 

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 2 years 

(NOTIFY-04) 

or 

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 5 years 

(NOTIFY-05) 
*** 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 

1447 REI Notification

1448 

1449 Under the current rule, notification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers 

1450 by the agricultural employer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except 

1451 where the product label requires both. Greenhouses are required to post signs for all 

1452 applications. 

1453 

1454 NOTIFY-01 

1455 The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticides applications 

1456 where the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Unit VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this 

1457 proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory 

1458 can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leading cause of pesticide 

1459 incidents, following drift from adjacent fields, according to a NIOSH review of available 

1460 information (Calvert et al., 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from 

1461 inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including 

1462 unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there 

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

1464 avoided could become difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered 

1465 planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. 

1466 Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for 

1467 long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers 

1468 at the time of the application, but must also remember to notify workers who are not present at 

1469 the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers 

1470 receive the appropriate notification. 

1471 

1472 NOTIFY-02 

1473 An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has 

1474 a REI greater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly 

1475 less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to 

1476 remember REI information for three days rather than two. 

1477 

1478 NOTIFY-03 

1479 EPA is proposing to allow greenhouse operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four 

1480 hours or less. In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them 

1481 down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications 

1482 occur over such a short time interval. 

1483 

1484 NOTIFY-04/05 

1485 Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is 

1486 to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This 

1487 record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement 

1488 purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or 

1489 greenhouse. 

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

38 

1491 REI Warning Signs

1492 

1493 The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, the sign content, and the locations required for 

1494 posting signs. 

1495 

1496 NOTIFY-06 

1497 Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words 

1498 “Keep Out.” The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a 

1499 widely-recognized symbol for stop. It would also change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry 

1500 Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that 

1501 workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter 

1502 under certain conditions to perform early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C 

1503 of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions. 

1504 

1505 NOTIFY-07 

1506 An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as 

1507 require posting field-specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of 

1508 the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones 

1509 symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation 

1510 of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for all 

1511 pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The field1512 specific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to 

1513 keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) 

1514 and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be 

1515 available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11). 

1516 

1517 NOTIFY-08 

1518 REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points 

1519 of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area 

1520 or an area affording maximum visibility. Signs are also required to be placed on each border 

1521 with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the 

1522 warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated 

1523 area. The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials. 

1524 

1525 NOTIFY-09 

1526 An alternate potential requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet 

1527 along the field as well as at the usual points of entry. The advantage of this requirement is that it 

1528 would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without 

1529 following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be 

1530 since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage 

1531 the plants. 

1532 

1533 Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

1534 

1535 Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certain 

1536 narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact”, “no contact”, “short-term”, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

39 

1537 “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Except for entry under the “no contact” 

1538 exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks wear all PPE 

1539 required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information 

1540 on the pesticide label prior to entry. See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also 

1541 considering certain revisions to these exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below. 

1542 

1543 NOTIFY-10 

1544 As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most 

1545 common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al., 2008). Sufficient information is 

1546 lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred 

1547 during employer-directed entry. Under the proposed option, the early entry notification would 

1548 be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and 

1549 end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy 

1550 organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early 

1551 entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the 

1552 particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception. 

1553 

1554 NOTIFY-11 

1555 EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute written pesticide hazard 

1556 information (i.e., crop sheets) to each worker upon early entry in addition to the oral warnings, as 

1557 suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to 

1558 the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated 

1559 with pesticide exposure. Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than 

1560 spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especially if the employer or employee 

1561 is using a second language. On the other hand, given language differences and the literacy rate 

1562 in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more 

1563 effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously 

1564 can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not 

1565 have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, 

1566 such documents often end up scattered in the field. 

1567 

1568 NOTIFY-12/13 

1569 These potential provisions would require the agricultural employer to retain a worker-signed 

1570 record that notification was provided prior to early entry. NOTIFY-09 would require retention 

1571 for two years while NOTIFY-10 would require that records be kept for five years. As above, 

1572 records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance. These records can also help in 

1573 diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later 

1574 exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms. 

1575 

1576 Pesticide Safety Information Display

1577 

1578 The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide 

1579 safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from 

1580 exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Currently, safety posters are 

1581 required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm. Table 2.2-6 presents 

1582 current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays. Contact 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

40 

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

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

1585 XII.A, for more on additional displays. 

1586 

1587 Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information 

Basic pesticide safety 

information display includes 

decontamination information 

and self-protective practices

Additional basic pesticide safety 

information display content to 

include:

State enforcement agency 

contact information 

Medical facility contact 

information

(NOTIFY-14) 

No change from current 

requirements

Basic pesticide safety 

information displayed at a 

central location

Additional safety information 

display required with worker 

decontamination supplies 

(NOTIFY-15) Additional display with all field 

warning signs

(NOTIFY-17) Additional safety information 

display with handler 

decontamination supplies

(NOTIFY-16) 

1588 

1589 NOTIFY-14 

1590 This proposed requirement would add contact information for the state enforcement agency and 

1591 the appropriate medical facility to the display. Information about how to contact enforcement 

1592 personnel would enable employees to report violations. Contact information for the medical 

1593 facility insures that employees have the ability to call for assistance in case of an accident. 

1594 

1595 NOTIFY-15 

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

1597 located when and where worker decontamination supplies are made available. The display 

1598 would provide essential decontamination information at the time and place it is most needed. 

1599 Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinforced by routine 

1600 practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate steps to take in case of exposure will 

1601 reinforce the training message. 

1602 

1603 NOTIFY-16 

1604 This option would also require at least one additional safety information display for handlers and 

1605 would be located at the decontamination site(s) typically used for mixing and loading of 

1606 pesticides. The potential benefits are similar to those described in NOTIFY-15 above. 

1607 

1608 NOTIFY-17 

1609 Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options: requiring additional pesticide safety 

1610 displays with all posted field warning (REI) signs or at worker changing sites. They noted that 

1611 having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

41 

1612 the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency 

1613 personnel. 

1614 

1615 Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms 

1616 

1617 The WPS requires commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural 

1618 employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. The agricultural employer is 

1619 required to provide the CPHE with information about treated areas under REIs on the 

1620 establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently enter a treated field. The CPHE is required 

1621 to notify the agricultural employer prior to making an application so that information, e.g., about 

1622 REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s employees. If there are changes in a scheduled 

1623 application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the 

1624 requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employer of changes in a pesticide application to 

1625 reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2-7. 

1626 

1627 Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements. 

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

 the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

 date and time of application; 

 the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

 the REI, 

 whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

 any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify the 

agricultural employer prior to 

any changes in the application 

Subsequent guidance allows 

some flexibility in notification 

of changes

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

 the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

 date and time of application; 

 estimated time application 

ends; 

 the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

 the REI, 

 whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

 any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer of any 

changes within 2 hours of end of 

application (not required if time 

of application changes < 1 hour)

(NOTIFY-18) 

No change from current 

requirements

1628 

1629 NOTIFY-18 

1630 Under the proposed option, the CPHE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer 

1631 of the application information prior to the pesticide application. Notification of a change to the 

1632 estimated application end time would be required within two hours of the end of the application, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

42 

1633 and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the 

1634 NPRM for details. This revision largely clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides 

1635 flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but 

1636 that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS. 

1637 

1638 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers 

1639 

1640 EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers 

1641 from the adverse effects of pesticides. Proposed changes include establishing minimum age 

1642 requirements for certain tasks, restrictions covering entry into and around treated areas, and 

1643 changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE). These provisions are 

1644 intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides. 

1645 

1646 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options 

1647 

1648 Currently, the WPS contains no age restrictions for agricultural employees. Adolescents, 

1649 however, may be at greater risk from pesticide exposure because many of their biological and 

1650 neurological systems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are 

1651 adult systems. Further, adolescents may pose greater risks for pesticide exposure because they 

1652 often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, 

1653 EPA focused on two situations: handling of pesticides including mixing, loading, and applying; 

1654 and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances 

1655 under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3-1 

1656 summarizes the potential restrictions. The NPRM provides a complete description of the 

1657 proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit XII.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit 

1658 XI.B discusses the handler restrictions. 

1659 

1660 The proposed restrictions would not apply to persons covered by the immediate family 

1661 exemption, i.e., for children and other family members of the owner/operator of the WPS farm. 

1662 

1663 Table 2.3-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age 

1664 Restrictions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

No age restriction on person 

performing early entry activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-01)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-02)

No age restriction on person 

performing handling activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to perform handler duties

(AGE-03)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to perform handler duties 

(AGE-04)

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

1666 

1667 AGE-01/03 

1668 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers entering fields during 

1669 a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 16 years of age. As explained in more detail in Chapters 

1670 1 and 6, studies have suggested that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

43 

1671 and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive 

1672 (EPA, 2002)). Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the 

1673 highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health. Further, young adults 

1674 may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the 

1675 consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006)). Thus, they may be less likely 

1676 to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, 

1677 adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the 

1678 potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment. EPA estimates that there are about 

1679 19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 

1680 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent 

1681 workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikely that 

1682 youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs. 

1683 

1684 AGE 02/04 

1685 Alternatively, EPA considered a minimum age requirement of 18 years. This alternative would 

1686 provide greater benefits than would a minimum age of 16 years due to the number of adolescents 

1687 covered. Based on the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) (DoL, 2005), EPA 

1688 estimates there are nearly 87,000 adolescents between 16 and 17 years of age employed as farm 

1689 workers in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16. Around 18,300 adolescent 

1690 workers might engage in early entry activities each year and 5,600 might act as handlers on 

1691 occasion, including 4,600 between 17 and 18 years of age. Older youths, however, may be less 

1692 sensitive to exposure and less likely to take risks than their younger counterparts. 

1693 

1694 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions 

1695 

1696 Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA considered several revisions 

1697 to the WPS to bolster protections for agricultural workers and handlers. The current 

1698 requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2.3-2. In some cases, the proposed 

1699 revisions simply clarify conditions under which a person may be in or near a treated area during 

1700 the restricted interval. 

1701 

1702 Table 2.3-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Entry Restrictions.

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 treated 

area during a REI, if labelrequired protections are 

provided, for 

 no contact activities

 short term activities (≤ 1 

hour) not including hand 

labor

 limited contact activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

 irrigation activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

 agricultural emergencies 

including hand labor (no time 

limit) 

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 4 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-03)

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 8 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-04) 

or 

Exceptions would no longer be 

allowed

(ENTRY-06)

Cholinesterase Inhibition

No restrictions on handlers No change from current 

requirements

Monitor for cholinesterase 

inhibition and prohibit further 

activity with cholinesteraseinhibiting products if inhibition 

is found 

(ENTRY-07) 

or 

Limit time handling 

cholinesterase-inhibiting 

products to 30 hours in 30 days 

(ENTRY-08) 

1703 

1704 Entry during Application

1705 

1706 The current requirements limit contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into 

1707 an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, currently limited to 

1708 nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit 

1709 exposure from drift. 

1710 

1711 ENTRY-01 

1712 The proposed requirement, applicable to farms and forests, would establish an “entry restricted 

1713 area” of 25 to 100 feet around the area being treated, depending on the method of application. 

1714 The size of the restricted area is based on the pesticide application method because some 

1715 methods, such as aerial applications, are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in1716 furrow applications). See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details. This “entry restricted area” would 

1717 protect workers, other employees, and potentially the public in U-Pick operations from pesticide 

1718 drift. See Chapter 1. 

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

45 

1720 ENTRY-02 

1721 The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either 

1722 directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

1723 equipped handler.” The proposed requirement would strengthen this by adding a provision that 

1724 states the handler must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, 

1725 other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted 

1726 area.” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit 

1727 of the revision is to clarify the action the handler must take if someone is in the treatment area. 

1728 

1729 Together, these proposed options (ENTRY-01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of 

1730 worker exposure through unintentional contact during application, which is the second-leading 

1731 cause of pesticide incidents according to the analysis of occupational incident data in Calvert 

1732 (2008). 

1733 

1734 Entry During REI

1735 

1736 Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to 

1737 potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop1738 specific requirements for the REI – the time after the end of an application during which worker 

1739 entry is restricted – based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces 

1740 and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity 

1741 resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can 

1742 be used. For example, if applications are prohibited in the latter part of the season, EPA would 

1743 not be concerned about exposure during harvest. Early entry into the treated area during the REI 

1744 is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical 

1745 for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks 

1746 that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), 

1747 PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the 

1748 workers. However, for “agricultural emergencies,” the WPS does not currently specify the 

1749 length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area. 

1750 

1751 ENTRY-03 

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

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

1754 Unit XII.D for details. Products require double-notification warnings (both oral and sign 

1755 warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the 

1756 duration of any exposure, which increases the likelihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained 

1757 while the worker is in the field. The four-hour limit is half the allowed time for the irrigation and 

1758 limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits 

1759 hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to 

1760 adhere. 

1761 

1762 ENTRY-04 

1763 An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated 

1764 area under an REI in any twenty-four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit 

1765 as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

46 

1766 requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency 

1767 exception, a similar time limit would be less protective for workers than the existing time limits 

1768 on other exceptions. 

1769 

1770 ENTRY-06 

1771 EPA also considered eliminating early entry exceptions, as suggested by some advocacy groups. 

1772 This option provides more protection for workers than under the current WPS or proposed 

1773 potential revisions by simply eliminating the potential for exposure. However, except for the 

1774 agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activities generally result in lower levels of 

1775 exposure than the activities upon which the REIs are established (e.g., thinning or hand 

1776 harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for these purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring 

1777 entry, may be less than they first appear. 

1778 

1779 Cholinesterase Inhibition 

1780 

1781 Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits 

1782 signals across nerve synapses. When cholinesterase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion 

1783 of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur and result in illness. Organophosphate (OP) and 

1784 carbamate pesticides, widely used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE. Agricultural 

1785 handlers who mix, load and apply these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition. 

1786 

1787 ENTRY-07 

1788 One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as 

1789 is done in Washington State. In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs 

1790 and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition. When indication of inhibition is found, 

1791 handler exposure to such pesticides is restricted for a period of time. ChE levels can be 

1792 determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for cholinesterase levels to which 

1793 the test can be compared. Thus, a monitoring program would require an initial sample to 

1794 establish the handler’s own pre-exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow-up tests 

1795 to measure inhibition. 

1796 

1797 The purpose of a monitoring program is to identify handlers who have reached a level of 

1798 exposure that has an observable effect and protect them from further exposure. An ancillary 

1799 benefit, demonstrated by the Washington program, is that it can identify farms and individual 

1800 handlers who may need to alter their practices to reduce exposure in general. A disadvantage of 

1801 such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individual handler. In 2007, 

1802 Washington reports that over eight percent of handlers who handled ChE-inhibiting pesticides 

1803 declined to participate in the program; others may have felt obliged to participate by their 

1804 employers. 

1805 

1806 ENTRY-08 

1807 Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 

1808 30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approach California 

1809 developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more 

1810 than the limit. Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that 

1811 would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

47 

1812 would be avoided. ChE inhibition is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have 

1813 returned to normal will result in greater and greater inhibition. However, there is no scientific 

1814 basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit. Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain. 

1815 

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

1817 

1818 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment 

1819 

1820 Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of personal 

1821 protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide 

1822 labels may require the use of PPE. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to 

1823 ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropriate time. This is 

1824 one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions 

1825 to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3-3, are evaluated as ways to further improve safety. 

1826 

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

1828 Equipment

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Handler employer is required to 

confirm respirator fit. 

Require fit test, training and 

medical evaluation conforming 

to OSHA requirements; keep 

records

(PPE-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Employers are exempt from 

certain WPS requirements 

regarding employees under the 

supervision of Certified Crop 

Advisors 

Eliminate exemption for WPS 

employers

(PPE-02) 

and 

Eliminate exemption for 

employers of commercial 

advising services 

(PPE-03)

No change from current 

requirements

Substitution of closed system for 

PPE while mixing/loading 

pesticides.

Define closed system and 

require records of system 

maintenance. 

(PPE-04)

No change from current 

requirements

Contaminated PPE must be 

disposed properly 

Contaminated PPE must be 

rendered unwearable and 

disposed properly 

(PPE-05) 

No change from current 

requirements 

1829 

1830 PPE-01 

1831 The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that 

1832 the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would 

1833 establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirator wearer, and 

1834 medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates OSHA 

1835 requirements that apply to workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This 

1836 requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

48 

1837 training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 

1838 when filters need replacement. The medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to 

1839 identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help 

1840 handlers determine if they can safely wear the device. For the employer, the revision would also 

1841 clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee. Finally, as noted with 

1842 similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance. 

1843 

1844 PPE-02/03 

1845 The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements, including 

1846 provision of label-required PPE, for employees who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and 

1847 employees working under the supervision of a CCA. This exemption is also extended to 

1848 commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of 

1849 CCAs. The proposed revisions eliminate those exemptions for WPS employees (PPE-02) and 

1850 commercial service employees (PPE-03) working under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit 

1851 XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully 

1852 trained and may be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk, even with 

1853 instruction from a CCA. 

1854 

1855 PPE-04 

1856 Under the current regulations, a closed mixing and loading system may be substituted for label1857 required PPE. A closed system, under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly 

1858 functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 

1859 persons.” This definition lacks specificity. 

1860 

1861 If a health hazard cannot be removed from the workplace, there are three categories of methods 

1862 to control the hazards according to industrial hygienists: engineering controls, administrative 

1863 controls, and personal protective equipment. Engineering controls should be the first line of 

1864 defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed systems are considered an engineering control 

1865 method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to 

1866 eliminate exposure. Closed systems reduce the human decision-making element from the 

1867 process so mistakes are not as likely. In contrast, PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn 

1868 incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g., in hot weather. Additionally, PPE only 

1869 protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, the substitution of 

1870 a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well. 

1871 

1872 The proposed revision helps to ensure these benefits by establishing a clear definition of the 

1873 requirements that constitute a closed system, which is currently lacking. The lack of clear 

1874 standards means that some closed systems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of 

1875 PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of system maintenance 

1876 would help to verify compliance with standards. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the changes are 

1877 handlers, including self-employed handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who 

1878 will be assured that the closed system provides protection to minimize exposure. 

1879 

1880 PPE-05 

1881 Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS 

1882 would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable as part of proper disposal. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

49 

1883 That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contamination with a pesticide, 

1884 but are otherwise intact, the agricultural employer must ensure that the items cannot be used 

1885 again, e.g., by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who 

1886 might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues. 

1887 

1888 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure 

1889 

1890 EPA is considering regulatory options to improve emergency assistance for workers and handlers 

1891 who may have been made ill from exposure to pesticides. Most of these proposals clarify the 

1892 requirements for the provision of decontamination supplies and of emergency medical response 

1893 in case of exposure. 

1894 

1895 2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options 

1896 

1897 The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made 

1898 available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enough,” 

1899 however, is not defined in the WPS, although EPA has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 

1900 2006). Table 2.4-2 presents the options EPA considered for requirements to clarify the quantity 

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

1902 

1903 Table 2.4-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination 

1904 Supplies.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “enough” (1 gallon) water 

per worker for routine washing and 

emergency eye flushing

Provide 1 gallon of water per 

worker for routine washing 

and emergency eye flushing.

(SUPPLY-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Provide “sufficient” water (1 gallon) 

per early entry worker for thorough 

washing; provide 1 pint water for eye 

flushing as required

Provide 3 gallons of water per 

early entry worker for 

thorough washing; provide 1 

pint water for eye flushing as 

required

(SUPPLY-02)

No change from current 

requirements
*** 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 

1906 Decontamination Supplies for Workers 

1907 

1908 The current WPS regulations require that workers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

1909 towels for washing when a pesticide covered by the regulation has been used or an REI has been 

1910 in effect in the last 30 days and workers may contact anything that has been treated with the 

1911 pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon per worker. 

1912 

1913 SUPPLY-01 

1914 The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide one gallon of water per 

1915 worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. This codifies existing guidance and the 

1916 benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement 

1917 agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details. 

1918 

1919 SUPPLY-02 

1920 The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide three gallons of water per 

1921 worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e., in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit 

1922 XII.C, for all requirements. This provision provides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the 

1923 amount of water available for thorough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers. 

1924 More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for 

1925 exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities. 

1926 

1927 Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

1928 

1929 The current WPS regulations require that handlers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

1930 towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. EPA has issued guidance defining 

1931 “enough” water to be three gallons per handler. Current regulations also require that handlers 

1932 carry one pint of water for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear. 

1933 Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity. 

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

51 

1935 SUPPLY-03 

1936 This revision would specify that the employer must provide three gallons per handler for routine 

1937 washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit 

1938 XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontamination supplies. As with SUPPLY-01, this 

1939 codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity 

1940 for employers and enforcement agencies. 

1941 

1942 SUPPLY-04 

1943 An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide 

1944 substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mixing and loading large quantities of pesticides, 

1945 including concentrated solutions. Secondary benefits would be the availability of showers that 

1946 could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might 

1947 otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, however, as discussions 

1948 with field personnel suggest that very few employees would avail themselves of shower facilities 

1949 on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information. 

1950 

1951 SUPPLY-05 

1952 This proposed potential requirement would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be 

1953 supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute. 

1954 This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required 

1955 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-1990. See Unit XIV.C of the 

1956 NPRM for a complete description of the proposal. The requirement is intended to provide 

1957 handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. 

1958 Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them 

1959 prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient. 

1960 

1961 SUPPLY-06 

1962 A similar requirement would require portable eyewash stations at all mixing/loading sites, not 

1963 just the permanent sites. The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for 

1964 SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other than those permanently dedicated for mixing 

1965 pesticides. However, reports from state authorities indicate that the stations can be difficult to 

1966 maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a 

1967 complete discussion. 

1968 

1969 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response 

1970 

1971 Table 2.4-1 presents the options EPA considered for emergency response. These are explained 

1972 more fully in Unit XV.E of the NPRM. Current regulations require that transportation to an 

1973 emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medical 

1974 personnel must be “prompt,” but the regulations do not define “prompt.” 

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

52 

1976 Table 2.4-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Emergency Response 

1977 Provisions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

 

“Prompt” provision of transportation, 

and obtainable information on 

product name, EPA registration 

number, active ingredients, and 

medical information (symptoms, 

antidote, etc.), circumstances of 

exposure to the pesticide for 

agricultural workers

Provision of emergency 

transportation and of SDS or 

label or comparable 

information to medical 

personnel or the injured 

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG-01)

Provision of same within 60 

minutes

(EMERG-02)

“Prompt” provision of transportation, 

and obtainable information on the 

product name, EPA registration 

number, active ingredients, and 

medical information, circumstances 

of handling of and exposure to the 

pesticide for pesticide handlers

Provision of emergency 

transportation and of SDS or 

label or comparable 

information to medical 

personnel or the injured 

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG-03)

Provision within 60 minutes

(EMERG-04)

1978 

1979 EMERG-01/03 

1980 EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided 

1981 within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide 

1982 handlers (EMERG-03). Without a formal definition of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural 

1983 employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance. Clarification of the term “prompt” is 

1984 intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transport for medical treatment for an 

1985 emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner. 

1986 

1987 In addition to transportation, the proposal also clarifies the time for which pesticide information 

1988 such as the label and SDS are provided to the injured person or health care providers, who may 

1989 need this information to determine proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical 

1990 personnel with information about the pesticide symptoms and their treatment in a timely manner 

1991 is critical in reducing the adverse effects of exposures. 

1992 

1993 EMERG-02/04 

1994 The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the 

1995 regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would 

1996 clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is 

1997 provided within 30 minutes. 

1998 

1999 This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the 

2000 Agency. It described the benefits anticipated from the revisions, which are generally the 

2001 provision of more and better information at appropriate times and places, of improved protection 

2002 by reducing potential exposure for high-risk situations, and of more rapid and complete 

2003 mitigation of exposures if they occur. Ultimately, these changes will lead to fewer acute 

2004 incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticide exposure over time. 

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

53 

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

2007 discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives. 

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

54 

2009 Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options 

2010 

2011 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incremental cost of potential changes to the worker 

2012 protection standards that the Agency considered. The incremental cost is defined as the 

2013 difference between the cost of complying with the potential requirement and the cost of 

2014 complying with the current requirement. These costs, together with the benefits of the potential 

2015 requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to inform EPA’s selection of requirements that are 

2016 being proposed. The relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements are discussed in 

2017 Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the incremental cost of all the proposed requirements, 

2018 considering how they may interact, and Chapter 6 presents the benefits of the proposed revisions 

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

2020 

2021 These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 

2022 the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. 

2023 We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is 

2024 great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, 

2025 therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 

2026 conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 

2027 regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 

2028 more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms. EPA 

2029 has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be 

2030 in full compliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities 

2031 conduct inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted 

2032 randomly across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the result of 

2033 specific complaints. As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful 

2034 information on compliance rates. 

2035 

2036 As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall 

2037 regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, 

2038 because many of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may 

2039 have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost or lead to an overestimate of incremental 

2040 cost. Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions. 

2041 

2042 3.1 Overview 

2043 

2044 As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection 

2045 Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and 

2046 commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). For simplicity, we use the term “WPS 

2047 farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS. Forestry 

2048 operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use 

2049 patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training 

2050 and notification. Generally speaking, the revisions would require owners/operators of these 

2051 establishments to devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated 

2052 with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure. EPA 

2053 estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the value of the time and materials expended 

2054 to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct out-of-pocket expenses. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

55 

2055 

2056 In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate 

2057 their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the 

2058 management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature of these activities may vary by certain 

2059 characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 

2060 activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups: workers and handlers. 

2061 Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 

2062 agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products. 

2063 Hand labor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling. 

2064 Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g., to mix, load, and/or apply 

2065 pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are 

2066 typically workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail 

2067 handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule 

2068 depends on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time. 

2069 

2070 Federal requirements apply nationally, but states may enact additional measures. Thus, when 

2071 considering the impact of new federal standards, EPA must take into account existing state 

2072 measures. Section 3.2 explains the approach taken for estimating the state-level baseline against 

2073 which to measure the impact of potential requirements. Section 3.3 presents the estimation of 

2074 cost for all the potential requirements that EPA considered, as explained in Chapter 2. This 

2075 chapter estimates the costs of individual components and alternatives. Chapter 5 estimates the 

2076 cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employment and on small 

2077 businesses. 

2078 

2079 3.2. Regional Groupings 

2080 

2081 To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the 

2082 WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum 

2083 standards, but states, as well as other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 

2084 could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory 

2085 baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal 

2086 requirements. To reduce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine 

2087 regions of the country. 

2088 

2089 Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well 

2090 as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 

2091 location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the South 

2092 region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 

2093 region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 

2094 accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 

2095 Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 

2096 represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e., extensive 

2097 livestock production, rather than geographical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in 

2098 worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed 

2099 together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted 

2100 by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

56 

2101 warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. 

2102 California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the 

2103 state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 

2104 other states’ requirements. 

2105 

2106 Table 3.2-1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups. 

Region Representative State Other Jurisdictions 

South Arkansas Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Virginia

California California none 

Southwest Colorado Arizona and New Mexico and the 

Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

Sioux, and 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 

2108 Table 3.2-1 also lists a few non-state jurisdictions that are included in certain regions, including 

2109 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several tribal entities. These jurisdictions were assigned to a 

2110 region according to which of EPA’s regional offices they belong. Not all jurisdictions are 

2111 included in this analysis because data on farms and pesticide use are not available. This implies 

2112 some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the 

2113 effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have tiny 

2114 agricultural sectors relative to those in the states. 

2115 

2116 EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to 

2117 establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 

2118 applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 

2119 as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 

2120 there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-level estimates of cost are greater 

2121 than the variation in regional-level estimates. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

57 

2122 

2123 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements 

2124 

2125 The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential 

2126 worker protection standards at the national level and at the employer level. EPA also estimates 

2127 the potential costs across various regions of the United States, as described in Section 3.2. This 

2128 information is used to evaluate the individual regulatory options and develop a proposed suite of 

2129 regulatory changes, as explained in Chapter 4. The cost of those proposed requirements, as a 

2130 whole, is estimated in Chapter 5. 

2131 

2132 EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the 

2133 problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas considered different requirement options, 

2134 as detailed in Chapter 2. In this section, EPA presents the estimated cost of all the potential 

2135 requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. 

2136 Section 3.3.1 details the methodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental 

2137 cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presents some of the key data used throughout the 

2138 analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3.3 estimates the cost of potential requirements 

2139 associated with worker and handler training category, including a detailed presentation of an 

2140 example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions 

2141 to the WPS concerning hazard communications (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements 

2142 (Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions (3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), 

2143 supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9), and emergency response standards (3.3.10). 

2144 

2145 3.3.1 General Methodology

2146 

2147 In general, potential requirements may impose costs at both the level of the employer or 

2148 establishment and at the level of the employee. That is, there are some activities and/or materials 

2149 that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of 

2150 employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities 

2151 and/or materials may be conducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the 

2152 number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate 

2153 the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate 

2154 those costs to the regional level, given the number of actors (establishments or employees). 

2155 There are six basic steps. 

2156 

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

2158 

a,௜,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

஻

௧ ൌ ෍ݓa · ܪ௥,௜,a,௝

஻

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

௠,a,௜,௥ܯ · ௠ܿ෍൅

஻

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݉|݅ሻ

௠

2159 

where costr,i,a

B 2160 t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in region i, for an actor, 

a, in time t; Hr,i,a,j

B 2161 t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; wa is 

2162 the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Probt(j|i) is the 

probability of activity j in time t given the region; Mr,i,a,m

P 2163 t is the quantity of material m needed in 

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

58 

2165 material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establishment, 

2166 primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g., a pesticide handler or agricultural 

2167 worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g., 

2168 farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted by the establishment include 

2169 posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each employee include attending 

2170 training and obtaining written material from the employer, that is, activities for which an 

2171 establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity. The probability 

2172 weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year. 

2173 For example, if training is required biennially, any given employee would have about a 50 

2174 percent chance of taking a training. 

2175 

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

2177 

a,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓa · ܪ௥,a,௝

௉

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݆ሻ

௝

௠,a,௥ܯ · ௠ܿ෍൅

௉

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݉ሻ

௠

2178 

2179 where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 

2180 simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i, denoting a state or region. State requirements 

2181 can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential 

federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we restrict Hr,i,,a,j

B ≤ Hr,a,jP 2182 

and Mr,i,,a,m

B ≤ Mr,a,mP 2183 ; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings. 

2184 

2185 Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and potential new requirements by 

2186 multiplying per-actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across 

2187 actors. 

2188 

௜,௥ܥܴ

஻

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,௜,a

஻

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

2189 

௜,௥ܥܴ

௉

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௉

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

2190 

where RCr,i

X 2191 denotes the cost of requirement r to region i of the regional baseline, B, and the 

2192 potential new requirement, P; and Na,i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the 

2193 number of affected actors, e.g., the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be 

2194 known and has to be estimated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). 

2195 

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

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 stream1 2199 . To better compare the impacts across the 

2200 various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, EPA calculates the present 

2201 value (PV) of regional costs over a ten-year time horizon. 

2202 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௜,௥ܥܴ ෍൯ൌ௑

௑

௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

2203 

2204 where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. The time horizon is 

2205 not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur 

2206 annually. However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten years 

2207 was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might 

2208 financially amortize such expenditures. Further, the number of actors is changing over time, 

2209 with the number of farms and farm workers declining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates 

2210 of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 

2211 2008b) spanning a ten-year period. This is explained more fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a 

2212 discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to 

2213 represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 

2214 2003). 

2215 

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

2217 

2218 Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement in each region by subtracting 

2219 the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement. 

2220 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ௥,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜஻൯

2221 

2222 Where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i. 

2223 The PV of national incremental cost, PV(NICr), is calculated the same way. 

2224 

2225 Step 6. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized 

2226 figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present 

2227 value as a variable cost stream. 

2228 

ܥܫܣ ௥ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ௥ሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ் െ 1

2229 

2230 where AICr is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time 

2231 horizon, i.e., ten years; and all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized 

2232 incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per 

2233 establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential 

2234 requirement. A more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, 

2235 considering the costs of all proposed requirements. 

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 

2237 A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This 

2238 will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses 

2239 the data that are commonly used throughout the analysis. Data that are specific to individual 

2240 requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement. 

2241 

2242 3.3.2 General Data

2243 

2244 For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 

2245 meet current and potential requirements and the probability or frequency with which they will be 

2246 needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential 

2247 requirement. The other component of the per-actor costs are the prices associated with time and 

2248 material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are 

2249 discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national (Step 3) requires data on the number 

2250 of actors in each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the 

2251 employees to which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time 

2252 (Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultural sector. Most of the 

2253 time and materials needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an 

2254 annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms 

2255 consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. 

2256 In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and 

2257 employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time. 

2258 

2259 Establishments, Farms 

2260 

2261 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, 

2262 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department 

2263 of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of 

2264 data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify the number of these operations that use 

2265 pesticides and hire labor. Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the 

2266 WPS requirements. However, the WPS applies only to those pesticides used in the commercial 

2267 or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. 

2268 Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not 

2269 covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock 

2270 production. There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, 

2271 however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3-1 presents the number of farms where 

2272 crops are raised, including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their 

2273 distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis. According to the tabulation, 

2274 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007. However, 

2275 pesticides are not necessarily used every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, 

2276 and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS 

2277 requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight 

2278 overestimation due to the presence of organic growers. However, many organic producers also 

2279 have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered 

2280 less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements. 

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

61 

2282 There is likely to be substantial overestimation of the number of affected farms, however, 

2283 because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand labor activities or if handlers 

2284 are working with pesticides used for crop production. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in 

2285 the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. The 2007 Census 

2286 of Agriculture identifies 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of 

2287 revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production so many other farms might 

2288 produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of 

2289 oilseeds and/or grains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, 

2290 so this analysis includes all farms with crop production. 

2291 

2292 Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 

2293 definition of handler includes any self-employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 

2294 However, these farms will generally not be affected by the proposed revisions because there is an 

2295 exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate 

2296 family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some 

2297 exemptions to pesticide label requirements, e.g., entry into treated fields during a REI during an 

2298 agricultural emergency. Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect 

2299 all farms applying pesticides. 

2300 

Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms1 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 

2302 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 

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

2304 

2305 The tabulation for farms using pesticides and farms hiring labor is at the national level only. 

2306 EPA assumes that farms hiring labor and using pesticides are distributed throughout the country 

2307 in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus, while the national figures are well-defined, the 

2308 regional numbers are less precise. 

2309 

2310 Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on 

2311 the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a 

2312 pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 

2313 commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater 

2314 than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

62 

2315 Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 

2316 category into three groups: small-small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 

2317 medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small 

2318 farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 

2319 which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. 

2320 Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; 

2321 medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with 

2322 annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions correlate to the 

2323 number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also 

2324 correlate to pesticide use. Around 90 percent of large and large-small WPS farms used 

2325 pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four percent of 

2326 medium-small farms used pesticides. 

2327 

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

Region WPS 

Farms 

SmallSmall 1MediumSmall 2LargeSmall 3Large 4

South 58,804 11,906 18,062 20,746 8,089 

California 24,469 4,954 7,516 8,633 3,366 

Southwest 12,629 2,557 3,879 4,456 1,737 

Subtropical 9,866 1,998 3,031 3,481 1,357 

Midwest 85,641 17,340 26,305 30,214 11,781 

Northeast 40,650 8,231 12,486 14,341 5,592 

Ohio Valley 91,166 18,459 28,003 32,164 12,541 

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 9,829 14,910 17,126 6,678 

Northwest 22,890 4,635 7,031 8,076 3,149 

U.S. 394,658 79,909 121,223 139,237 54,289 

2329 Source: Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Establishments distributed 

2330 across regions according to distribution of all crop farms. 

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

2 2332 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual 

2333 revenue between $50,000 and $500,000. 

3 2334 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between 

2335 $500,000 and $2.5 million. 

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

2337 million. 

2338 

2339 Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers

2340 

2341 In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) 

2342 database of companies and identified firms under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

2343 code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting 

2344 services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting). 

2345 Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that reported hiring at least one employee. 

2346 

2347 Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications. Based on conversations with the 

2348 National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

63 

2349 commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we 

2350 estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishments. Given the proportion from Dun & 

2351 Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at 

2352 least one employee. 

2353 

2354 Adding the estimate of aerial applicators to the number of firms identified in Dun & Bradstreet 

2355 for other pest control firms results in a total of 2,793 CPHEs with employees. These firms are 

2356 distributed across the regions in the same proportion as total farms. See Table 3.3-3. This 

2357 assumption seems reasonable considering that the CPHEs would largely be servicing the farm 

2358 sector. 

2359 

2360 EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to 

2361 the NASS data, there were 89,529 commercial applicators certified in the Agricultural Plant 

2362 Production category. Given data on employees from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we 

2363 estimate those establishments to account for 19,873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At 

2364 the extreme, all these commercial applicators could be self-employed. More likely, many are 

2365 part of small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one-fourth of 

2366 these applicators are self-employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 

2367 average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in 

2368 Table 3.3-3, this implies that there are 17,414 self-employed commercial applicators and 20,897 

2369 CPHEs with two or three applicators. These two categories are distributed across the regions 

2370 based on the number of commercial applicators certified in each state (CPARD, 2007). 

2371 

2372 Table 3.3-3. Estimated number of CPHEs, by region. 

Region CPHE 

multiple employees 

CPHE 

few employees 

CPHE 

self-employed 

South 416 918 765 

California 173 1,049 874 

Southwest 89 662 552 

Subtropical 70 120 110 

Midwest 606 8,355 6,963 

Northeast 288 3,386 2,822 

Ohio Valley 645 2,404 2,003 

Texas/Mountain West 344 889 741 

Northwest 162 3,113 2,594 

U.S. 2,793 20,897 17,414 

2373 Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007). 

2374 

2375 Establishments, Wage Rates

2376 

2377 The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most 

2378 requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for 

2379 farm establishments are $19.75 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 

2380 benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of 

2381 total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010). We, therefore, use a 

2382 loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as the full value of time. For commercial pesticide handling 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

64 

2383 establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers 

2384 (since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series 

2385 for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - “Support Activities for Crop Production”) for SOC code 

2386 37-1012 (“First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 

2387 2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this 

2388 category is $30.30 per hour. 

2389 

2390 Employees, Farmworkers 

2391 

2392 Table 3.3-4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops 

2393 and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the 

2394 category of farms covered by the WPS, we implicitly assume that all labor is covered, over 2.3 

2395 million people. The WPS only covers farmworkers engaged in hand labor activities, so this is 

2396 likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and 

2397 vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, however, so any overestimation is less than that 

2398 in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3-4 also presents the number of employees on farms 

2399 according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire 

2400 labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the 

2401 crop farms, the number of workers at the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS 

2402 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by 

2403 size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all 

2404 farm workers. 

2405 

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

Region Farm Labor Regional 

Share 

Farm Labor 

Large Farms 1

Farm Labor 

Small Farms 1

United States 2,322,610 1,084,121 1,238,489 

South 274,068 11.8% 127,926 146,142 

California 394,844 17.0% 184,301 210,543 

Southwest 78,969 3.4% 36,860 42,109 

Subtropical 111,485 4.8% 52,038 59,447 

Midwest 299,617 12.9% 139,852 159,765 

Northeast 278,713 12.0% 130,095 148,619 

Ohio Valley 353,037 15.2% 164,786 188,250 

Texas/Mountain 

West 185,809 8.0% 86,730 99,079 

Northwest 346,069 14.9% 161,534 184,535 

2407 Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 

1 2408 Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue 

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

2410 with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less. 

2411 

2412 Employees, Pesticide Handlers 

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

65 

2414 The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms unknown. EPA assumes that, on average, large 

2415 WPS farms employ two individuals who handle pesticides and large-small WPS farms employ 

2416 one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA 

2417 assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. The distribution of handlers, therefore, 

2418 is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3-1, not to workers as in Table 3.3-4. Pesticide handlers 

2419 represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on-farm handler 

2420 would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform 

2421 other production-related tasks. 

2422 

2423 Table 3.3-5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number 

2424 of handlers employed at CPHEs, given the same assumptions underlying Table 3.3-4. All WPS 

2425 farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications.

2426 

2427 Table 3.3-5. WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers. 

Region Handlers 

WPS farms 1

Handlers 

CPHEs 2, 

multiple 

employees

Handlers 

CPHEs, 

few employees

Handlers 

CPHEs, 

self-employed 

South 36,924 2,961 2,296 765 

California 15,365 1,232 2,623 874 

Southwest 7,930 636 1,656 552 

Subtropical 6,195 497 299 100 

Midwest 53,776 4,312 20,889 6,963 

Northeast 25,525 2,047 8,465 2,822 

Ohio Valley 57,245 4,591 6,009 2,003 

Texas/Mountain 

West 30,481 2,444 2,223 741 

Northwest 14,373 1,153 7,782 2,594 

U.S. 247,815 19,873 52,242 17,414 

2428 Source: NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates. 

1 2429 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 

2430 establishment and one handler per large-small WPS establishment, not including the employer. 

2431 Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category. 

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

2433 farms. 

3 2434 Number of handlers includes employer. Distribution across regions follows number of state 

2435 commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production. 

2436 

2437 Employees, Wages 

2438 

2439 Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

2440 Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 

2441 employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2007c). The number of 

2442 handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (17,080 in total) is 

2443 estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45-2091(Agricultural Equipment 

2444 Operators) or 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation) that work for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

66 

2445 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Regional numbers are 

2446 estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1.

2447 

2448 The average wage rate for U.S. field workers reported in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor 

2449 Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS (2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, 

2450 wages represent slightly more than 69.5 percent of total compensation, while for workers in the 

2451 Natural Resource, Construction, and Maintenance category, wages are around 67.5 percent of 

2452 total compensation. An agricultural category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may 

2453 better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the 

2454 available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this 

2455 analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to 

2456 the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the choice of loading factor is not 

2457 critical to estimating the incremental costs of the requirements. 

2458 

2459 Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, but we lack data on wage differentials. Instead, 

2460 EPA estimated the wage rate for handlers as the simple average of the agricultural worker and 

2461 the owner/operator of enterprise, obtaining a loaded wage rate of $20.83. An unloaded wage rate 

2462 of $14.07 per hour is reported for commercial pesticide handling establishment handlers (BLS, 

2463 2008). The loaded wage rate for handlers of commercial pesticide handling establishments, 

2464 therefore, is $20.10 per hour. We note that the two wage rates are similar, which lends support 

2465 for the estimated wage rate for on-farm handlers. 

2466 

2467 Future time periods 

2468 

2469 To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 

2470 calculates the present value (PV) of regional baseline and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 

2471 4 above. Thus, the calculation is: 

2472 

௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௑൯ൌ෍∑ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௑

௧ ௔ ൈ ܰ௔௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

2473 

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

2475 suppressed for clarity. 

2476 

2477 In general, the per-actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, 

2478 the number of actors is changing as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, 

2479 and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of 

2480 actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where ga represents the 

2481 annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is, 

2482 

ܰ௔௧ ൌ ܰ௔଴ · ሺ1 ൅ ݃௔ሻ௧ିଵ

2483 

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

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

67 

௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௑൯ൌ෍൥ܿݐݏ݋ തതതതതത௥,a

௑ · ܰ௔଴ · ෍ሺ1 ൅ ݃௔ሻ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

൩

௔

2486 

2487 That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 

2488 combines the effect of the growth or decline in numbers with the effect of the discount rate, 

2489 which can then be summed across actors. Thus, in lieu of estimating regional costs in every year 

2490 of the time horizon, we can often calculate the present value as the initial cost multiplied by 

2491 some factor that combines the growth rates of the actors with the discount rate. 

2492 

2493 Based on numbers reported in the Agricultural Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 

2494 2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in farm numbers to be 0.47% annually and the 

2495 decline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the ten2496 year sum of the combined effects is a multiplier of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers. 

2497 The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a ten2498 year sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3-6. Annual data on the number of 

2499 farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the number of farms is quite 

2500 steady and that the annual decline in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in 

2501 estimated costs is negligible, however, and does not influence the relative cost and benefits of the 

2502 options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered 

2503 in a sensitivity analysis for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5. 

2504 

2505 Table 3.3-6 Multipliers for calculating NPV. 

Actor ga r = 3% r = 7% 

WPS Farms - 0.47% 8.61 7.38 

Farm Handlers - 0.47% 8.61 7.38 

Farm Workers - 2.14% 8.03 6.91 

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93 

CPHE handlers 0.17% 8.85 7.57 

Commercial Applicators 3.06% 10.03 8.50 

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52 

2506 Source: EPA calculations. 

2507 

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

2509 Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Census Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA 

2510 utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating) as 

2511 representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of 

2512 establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CPHEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 

2513 4.27 percent per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years 

2514 is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate 

2515 the future growth of commercial pesticide services. If the future rate of growth is more 

2516 moderate, the multiplier would be lower. 

2517 

2518 For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from 

2519 employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment 

2520 Statistic’s National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

68 

2521 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop 

2522 Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37-

2523 3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing 

2524 at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent 

2525 discount rate. 

2526 

2527 The growth rate of commercial applicators was calculated (based on CPARD 2007 data) to be 

2528 3.06 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This 

2529 growth rate applies to CPHEs with few employees and their handlers as well as to self-employed 

2530 commercial handlers. 

2531 

2532 This completes the discussion of the general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 

2533 data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 

2534 requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 

2535 training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 

2536 and decontamination supplies. 

2537 

2538 3.3.3 Training

2539 

2540 Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially 

2541 hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity cost of labor during the time workers and handlers 

2542 are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide applicator firms bear costs for handler training. 

2543 

2544 We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct training sessions even if over the course of the 

2545 production season they find they do not need to make pesticide applications. Otherwise, any 

2546 untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained prior to an application, which 

2547 could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pesticide application could be made and untrained 

2548 employees would not be allowed to work in and around treated areas until they receive training, 

2549 which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into 

2550 compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms 

2551 may find it more cost-effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as 

2552 a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the incremental cost of potential training requirements 

2553 if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes 

2554 that WPS farms find it cost-effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, 

2555 but will not under potential regulations. For example, currently, if the owner/operator is a 

2556 certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid 

2557 provision of training as needed. A potential requirement, however, would raise the qualifications 

2558 needed to lead a training, which might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. 

2559 Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential 

2560 requirements if training occurs as needed in the baseline but will occur regardless of pesticide 

2561 use under the revisions. We also assume that all employees receive training, which likely leads 

2562 to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especially on farms with a primary focus of 

2563 livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide 

2564 residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training. 

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

69 

2566 In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training requirement in detail to 

2567 demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requirements, we provide summary 

2568 information about the effect of the requirements and present the results. Details on the 

2569 estimation are available in Appendix A. Potential requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2. 

2570 

2571 Requirement: Immediate Training of Workers 

2572 

2573 TRAIN-01. Immediate full training of workers. The potential requirement would require full 

2574 training of workers prior to entry into an area where a pesticide application had been made or a 

2575 REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days. 

2576 

2577 Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 

2578 Under current requirements, workers must be trained every five years. Requirements currently 

2579 allow for an abbreviated training, with full training required before the sixth day of entry into an 

2580 area described above. 

2581 

2582 Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 

2583 workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although the WPS farm 

2584 incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the worker to take the training at the same wage he 

2585 or she earns doing field work. 

2586 

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

2588 not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 

2589 although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is 

2590 

௠௥ி,௜,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ · ௝ܪ௥,௜,ி௥௠,௝

஻

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

2591 

2592 where j, in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training. There are four types of 

2593 trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different 

2594 wage rate. Table 3.3-7 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of 

2595 handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of 

2596 trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per 

2597 hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 

2598 75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent 

2599 of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2600 (BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3-7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of 

2601 total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on 

2602 NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scientist). Handler wages are as explained in 

2603 Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2. 

2604 The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with 

2605 trainers, extension agents, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the 

2606 owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a 

2607 training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA 

2608 assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes. 

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

70 

2610 Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-4), there are, on 

2611 average, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and 3.6 

2612 workers per small WPS farm. With a five-year training cycle, an average of four workers to less 

2613 than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number 

2614 could easily be accommodated with a single session. However, given new hires, including 

2615 workers who change employers, an average farm may need to train almost half its work force 

2616 each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm 

2617 masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, 

2618 large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 

2619 average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 

2620 workers. Given the overall averages, and the flexibility for training new hires provided by the 

2621 five-day period before a worker must be trained, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a 

2622 WPS farm conducts one full training each year. Individual farms will differ, perhaps 

2623 substantially. In fact, EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to 

2624 hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an 

2625 average of 2.2 training session per year, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 

2626 sessions per year, and large farms with more than ten workers hold 4.5 session per year. On 

2627 average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of 

2628 trainer is simply the proportion of trainings that type of trainer conducts. 

2629 

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.65 

Training 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 

costr,i,a

B

 $15.23 

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

2632 

2633 For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide 

2634 application is needed. The probability of conducting a training is therefore weighted by the 

2635 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1 

2636 percent. Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11.74. 

2637 

2638 The per-worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a similar manner. Each worker to be 

2639 trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. 

2640 Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48.9 percent of workers will to be trained each 

2641 year. This percentage is derived as follows. 

2642 

2643 Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the 

2644 National Agricultural Workers Survey, 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 percent of the 

2645 agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers. While this underestimates the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

71 

2646 true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and examines the impact of this 

2647 bias in a later sensitivity analysis. 

2648 

2649 This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards 

2650 require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning 

2651 workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. In addition, there will likely be 

2652 other workers that receive training even though they are within the five-year period because they 

2653 have changed employers and/or don’t remember when they last took the training or because it is 

2654 convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. Some workers may even receive 

2655 multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year. In the absence of specific data, EPA 

2656 assumes another 20 percent of the returning workforce will take the full training for one of these 

2657 reasons. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a calculated 33.6 percent of the 

2658 workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 16 percent, gives us 49.6 

percent of the workforce potentially in need of training2 2659 . 

2660 

2661 Some small portion of the workforce may work less than six days and thus could receive an 

2662 abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on Farm Labor Reports (NASS, 2007 and 

2663 2008a), EPA estimates that 28 percent of the agricultural workforce, including both new and 

2664 returning workers, are part-time employees who work less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five 

2665 percent of these part-time employees, or about 1.4 percent of the workforce, do not receive 

2666 training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98.6 percent of the first time 

2667 and returning workers in need of training will take the full training, or 48.9 percent of the total 

2668 workforce. 

2669 

2670 Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1.4 percent. However, 

2671 this suggests that up to 35,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training 

2672 when they are hired or within five years of a previous training. 

2673 

2674 Table 3.3-8 presents the per-worker cost of training under current requirements, including the 

2675 per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed 

2676 to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 

2677 percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only. We further assume that 25 

2678 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full 

2679 training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this 

2680 suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each 

2681 year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three 

2682 minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is 

2683 valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2. 

2684 

 

2

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

72 

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

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

Abbreviated Training 

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04 

Trainer for Abbreviated 

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08 

costr,a

B

 $ 3.40 

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

2687 

2688 For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that 

2689 make a pesticide application. Weighting the probability of attending some kind of training 

2690 session by this amount yields an expected cost per worker of $2.97. 

2691 

2692 Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of Potential Requirement 

2693 The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner. 

2694 

2695 EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 times per year, on average, over all farms, since 

2696 workers may be hired at different times during the year. This represents an increase over the 

2697 baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currently provided by the five-day grace 

2698 period. The probability of a training, by type of trainer, is, therefore, 50 percent higher than in 

2699 the baseline. Table 3.3-9 presents this estimation for establishments. 

2700 

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j) 

cost 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98 

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84 

Training by certified 

applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87 

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16 

costr,a

P

 $22.84 

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

2703 

2704 For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the 

2705 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application. Expected compliance cost 

2706 would be $17.62. 

2707 

2708 The per-worker cost for an establishment is similar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 

2709 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA 

2710 calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be trained every year as explained 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

73 

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

2712 would be eliminated. 

2713 

2714 In the first year under the rule, EPA calculates that an additional 1.2 percent of the total 

2715 workforce will need training. This represents the returning workers who previously worked less 

2716 than six days and, under the grace period, did not receive a full training. The percentage is 

2717 calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returning workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the 

2718 workforce we calculated above as receiving only abbreviated training. 

2719 

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

2721 

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j) 

cost 

costr,a

P

t

Worker Training (Year 1) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.508 $ 3.41 

Worker Training (future) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.496 $ 3.33 

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

2724 

2725 Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs are estimated to be $2.98 in the first year and 

2726 $2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower because the probability of attending a training is 

2727 adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that make a 

2728 pesticide application. 

2729 

2730 Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 

2731 Given the estimated costs per-establishment and per-worker, we can estimate the regional level 

2732 baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 

2733 each region that are affected by the requirements and adding the two components together. 

2734 

௜,௥ܥܴ

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௑

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

2735 

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

2737 and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4. Under current requirements, the national cost is 

2738 estimated to be $13.9 million per year. Establishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per 

2739 year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first 

2740 year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of 

2741 actors is anticipated to decline. Under the alternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, 

2742 baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million.

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

74 

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

 WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Baseline 

RCB

 i 

($1,000)

costr,i,,a

B

 $15.23 $ 3.40 

Region 

Number of 

WPS Farms 

Ni frm

Number of WPS 

Workers 

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 1,826 

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 

2745 Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3-1. Baseline costs per 

2746 WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

2747 summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2748 

2749 Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements. In 

2750 the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million. 

2751 Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9.0 million while worker-level cost rise only 

2752 slightly over the baseline. In future years, EPA estimates the worker-level will decline slightly 

2753 because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training. The 

2754 expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if 

2755 applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million. 

2756 

2757 Overall, however, the requirement would reduce the flexibility of agricultural establishments to 

2758 hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees. 

2759 This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in per2760 establishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9. 

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

75 

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

 WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Potential 

RCP

 est 

($1,000)

costr,a

P

 $22.84 $ 3.41 

Region 

Number of WPS 

Farms 

Ni est

Number of WPS 

Workers 

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,277 

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 

2763 Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008b); see Table 3-3.2. Baseline costs per 

2764 establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

2765 summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

2766 

2767 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes training costs are incurred only by those WPS farms 

2768 making a pesticide application in a given year. Under this scenario, the first-year cost is 

2769 estimated to be $13.9 million. 

2770 

2771 Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs. 

2772 EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten-year time horizon as explained in Section 3.3.1. The 

2773 costs per establishment for the baseline and the potential requirement are constant over time. 

2774 Thus, we can multiply the first year cost by 8.61, as explained in Section 3.3.2, to obtain the PV 

2775 of establishment cost. The cost per worker in the baseline is also constant and the multiplication 

2776 factor is 8.03. However, the cost per worker declines from $3.41 in the first year to $3.33 in 

2777 future years under the potential requirement once all part time workers obtain full training. The 

2778 PV of worker cost for the potential requirement is the first year cost plus the lower cost for future 

2779 years, times the number of workers, multiplied by 7.03, which calculates the discounted cost for 

2780 the last nine years of the time horizon. 

2781 

2782 That is, 

௥ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௉൯ൌ෍൥ܿݐݏ݋ തതതതതത௥,a

௑ · ܰ௔଴ · ෍ሺ1 ൅ ݃௔ሻ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

൩

௔

2783 

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

2785 

PV(NCr,wrkr

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

2787 

2788 Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added 

2789 together. Estimates are presented in Table 3.3-12. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

76 

2790 

2791 Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 

2792 The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 

2793 the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional baseline costs. 

2794 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ௥,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜஻൯

2795 

2796 Estimates are shown in Table 3.3-13, showing both establishment and worker components. This 

2797 potential requirement would reduce the per-worker cost, primarily because it eliminates 

2798 abbreviated trainings. The per-establishment cost, however, increases because more full 

2799 trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of the grace period between 

2800 employment and training. 

2801 

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

Region PV(RCP

frm) PV(RCPwrkr) PV(RCBfrm) PV(RCBwrkr) PV(RIC)

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 11,569 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 

2803 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2804 

2805 Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent 

2806 discount rate. Regional costs are estimated to range from $68,000 per year in the Subtropical 

2807 region to $663,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley. 

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

77 

2809 Table 3.3-14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training. 

Region PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC 

$1000 $1000

South 18,918 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 

2810 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2811 

2812 Step 6. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 

2813 The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level 

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

2815 Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3-14. The incremental cost of the potential 

2816 requirement is estimated to be $24.9 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This 

2817 corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an average of $7.20 per year per WPS farm. The per2818 farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 

2819 worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest 

2820 fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 

2821 spent in training may represent forgone wages. 

2822 

2823 Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training 

2824 As discussed throughout this example, EPA examined the effect of the assumption that all farms 

2825 hiring labor would, on average, conduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately 

2826 made on the farm. Under the alternative assumption that training only occurs if a pesticide 

2827 application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $2.2 million 

2828 annually, or $5.50 per year per WPS farm, on average. 

2829 

2830 At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of 

2831 the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential 

2832 requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers 

2833 attending training would increase from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of 

2834 this potential requirement is estimated to be $5.1 million per year or $12.90 per WPS farm. 

2835 

2836 Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate 

2837 As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on 

2838 estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in 

2839 lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A higher rate means more new workers who must receive 

2840 abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained. The former 

2841 is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

78 

2842 training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of 

2843 immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using 

2844 of a 16 percent new hire rate. Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the 

2845 assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a 

2846 reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias. 

2847 

2848 Other Training Requirements 

2849 

2850 Table 3.3-15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential training requirements EPA 

2851 is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we 

2852 briefly discuss the results and highlight any data considerations. 

2853 

2854 The most costly changes to the current standards would be to require annual training of workers 

2855 compared to the current requirement of training every five years (TRAIN-03, $8.8 million 

2856 annually) and to expand the content of worker training including an explanation of information 

2857 found in crop sheets (TRAIN-07, $5.3 million annually). Costs are estimated using a 3% 

2858 discount rate. The high cost reflects the significant increase in the amount of trainer and 

2859 employee time devoted to training and the number of affected farms and workers. Relatively 

2860 low-cost potential requirements include increasing the trainer qualifications for worker trainings 

2861 (TRAIN-08 and 09), which are estimated to cost around $1.1 million per year over 10 years. The 

2862 cost is primarily due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these 

2863 requirements would be delayed two years to allow sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary 

2864 qualifications and this delay is factored into the analysis. EPA also considered eliminating the 

2865 training verification programs (TRAIN-17), which would save the over $560,000 annually. 

2866 Alternatively, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a copy of the training registry, 

2867 could save almost $180,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective. 

2868 

Table 3.3-15. Present Value of National Costs, Potential Training Requirements 1 2869 . 

Potential Requirement PV(NCP

) PV(NCB) 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(NCP

) PV(NCB) 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

2870 Source: EPA estimates. 

1

 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2871 

2 2872 California requires additional worker training content, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 

2873 07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the 

2874 potential requirement. 

3 2875 California requires additional content and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the 

2876 regional baseline for other handler requirements, costs are constrained to be equal to the potential 

2877 regulatory costs. 

2878 

2879 TRAIN-02. Immediate full training of workers with exception. This potential requirement is a 

2880 variant on the one discussed previously (TRAIN-01); it would provide an exception to the 

2881 requirement of immediate training of workers. This exception would allow agricultural 

2882 employers to delay the full pesticide safety training for up to 2 days if workers are provided with 

2883 an EPA-approved right-to-know information sheet explaining pesticide hazard information prior 

2884 to entering an area that had been treated with a pesticide in the last 30 days. In addition to 

2885 providing workers with this right-to-know sheet, its content must be explained to the worker in a 

2886 manner they understand. The exception would maintain some of the existing flexibility for 

2887 employers. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option, compared to current requirements, 

2888 to be about $2.3 million per year or about $5.80 per farm per year, on average. 

2889 

2890 TRAIN-03, 04, and 05. Frequency of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers 

2891 must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area. 

2892 EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of worker training to every year (TRAIN-03). EPA 

2893 also considered requiring training every other year (TRAIN-04) and providing WPS farms with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

80 

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

2895 circumstances. 

2896 

2897 Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provides the training, and at the 

2898 worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. 

2899 Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential 

2900 requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to 

2901 accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings. The primary 

2902 reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training 

2903 each year. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental 

2904 costs to the agricultural sector of about $8.8 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20 

2905 per establishment. Biennial worker training (TRAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year 

2906 over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment. 

2907 

2908 If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pesticide application is made, 

2909 fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year. Under this assumption, annual training is 

2910 estimated to cost about $7.4 million annually ($18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would 

2911 cost about $2.6 million ($6.70 per WPS farm). 

2912 

2913 Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small 

2914 Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule. 

2915 The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than 

2916 ten workers that had no new employees and were using the same pesticide as in previous years 

2917 (TRAIN-05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e., annual 

2918 sales less than $750,000, but based on data from the Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA 

2919 estimates almost 95 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers. In fact, almost 60 

2920 percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers. It is not clear how many of these 

2921 farms would meet the latter two criteria. EPA estimates that, if five percent of small farms could 

2922 take advantage of the exception (i.e., had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in 

2923 previous years), this option would cost about $7.9 million per year across all farms, about $0.8 

2924 million less than annual training without exceptions. The incremental cost is estimated to be 

2925 $13.60 per year, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training 

2926 is estimated to be $15.90 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met 

2927 the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $11.30 per year, on average. 

2928 Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance 

2929 with the criteria for exception. 

2930 

2931 TRAIN-06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of 

2932 trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that 

2933 would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation 

2934 of the hazard information found in the SDS. Together, the expanded content is expected to add 

2935 another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06). This averages 

2936 out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm. The alternative would include an explanation of the 

2937 hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer 

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

81 

2939 million per year or an average of $13.40 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two-year delay 

2940 in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content. 

2941 

2942 The baselines for TRAIN-06 and 07 are different from those changing the frequency of 

2943 requirement because California already requires expanded content similar to TRAIN-06. 

2944 

2945 EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a 

2946 given year conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-06) would cost $3.6 

2947 million annually, or $9.00 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-07) 

2948 would cost $4.3 million annually, or $11.10 per WPS farm. 

2949 

2950 TRAIN-08 and 09. Increase worker trainer qualifications. These possible requirements would 

2951 set standards for trainers of agricultural workers. TRAIN-08 (proposed) would require trainers 

2952 to be qualified trainers of certified applicators or individuals who have completed an approved 

2953 Train-the-Trainers program; TRAIN-09 would only allow individuals who have completed an 

2954 approved Train-the-Trainers program. The impact of these potential requirements would be an 

2955 increase in the overall cost for trainers. There may be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about 

2956 $1.1 million per year or $2.80 per WPS farm for both options. In the short term, both options 

2957 could result in a shortage of trainers, with TRAIN-09 the more problematic. Employers could 

2958 face delays in scheduling training sessions, a cost we cannot quantify. Implementation of the 

2959 revision would be delayed two years to allow for more trainers to be trained. 

2960 

2961 The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estimated to be $853,000 per year or 

2962 $2.20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. 

2963 However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under 

2964 the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may 

2965 not be available on demand. Under this high-cost scenario, the incremental cost is estimated to 

2966 be $2.8 million annually or $7.20 per WPS farm. 

2967 

2968 TRAIN-10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are 

2969 not required to maintain records of the workers who have received training. These potential 

2970 revisions would impose such requirements. Costs consist of the opportunity cost of labor for 

2971 employees to acknowledge training and for employers to distribute, collect, and store the 

2972 acknowledgements. There are also material costs to store the acknowledgements, depending on 

2973 the length of storage. TRAIN-10 would require retention for two years while TRAIN-11 would 

2974 require retention for five years. In total, the cost to document and store records on agricultural 

2975 worker training is estimated to cost about $1.6 to $1.9 million annually or $4.10 to $4.90 per 

2976 year per WPS farm. 

2977 

2978 If training only occurs if there is at least one pesticide application, the estimated costs of the 

2979 requirements are $1.3 million per year ($3.20 per WPS farm) to keep records for two years and 

2980 $1.6 million per year ($4.00 per WPS farm) to keep records for five years. 

2981 

2982 TRAIN-12 and 13. Frequency of handler training. Current requirements stipulate that handler 

2983 training is valid for five years. EPA considered increasing the frequency of training to every 

2984 year under TRAIN-12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN-13 for handlers. Training 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

82 

2985 costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as 

2986 employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. As with worker training, some 

2987 establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase 

2988 in the frequency of trainings, but the primary reason that the regulatory cost increases is that 

2989 more handlers would receive training each year. 

2990 

2991 EPA estimates that there are over 247,000 handlers employed by WPS farms, based on the 

2992 assumption that there are, on average, two handlers for each large farm (annual revenues greater 

2993 than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between 

2994 $100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BLS, 

2995 2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories to 

2996 determine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic training. We exclude self2997 employed commercial handlers and other handlers who are certified because the training or 

2998 examinations required by states would meet the WPS requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 

2999 CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be 

3000 certified or in the process of obtaining certification and would probably meet WPS training 

3001 requirements. 

3002 

3003 Under TRAIN-12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about 

3004 $3.5 million per year and would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17.00 per year and 

3005 CPHEs an additional $66.70, on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or 

3006 seek commercial certification, the true incremental cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial 

3007 training under TRAIN-13 would cost $1.6 million annually over the baseline. Average per entity 

3008 costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8.10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs 

3009 would incur additional costs of about $27.40 per year, on average. The per-entity costs are 

3010 higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handlers. 

3011 

3012 California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is 

3013 adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the 

3014 federal standards. In the case of the potential requirement requiring biennial training, the cost of 

3015 California baseline is constrained to be that under biennial training to account for the fact that 

3016 federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments. 

3017 

3018 It could be that pesticide handlers would only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. 

3019 Under this scenario, requiring annual handler training would result in an incremental cost of $3.1 

3020 million annually or $15.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide 

3021 applications, there is no change in the assumptions underlying the estimate of their cost. 

3022 Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an additional $1.4 million per year ($6.90 

3023 per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EPA notes that the 

3024 assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handlers has little effect on the 

3025 estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms 

3026 making pesticide applications in any given year. 

3027 

3028 TRAIN-14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of 

3029 handler trainings and EPA estimates that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of 

3030 commercially available video materials. The expanded content under the potential requirements 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

83 

3031 could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the 

3032 training covers hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop 

3033 sheets (see HAZCOM-04). This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 

3034 15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training 

3035 each year. Average handler training costs under TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by 

3036 $3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are 

3037 estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year respectively. These requirements would not take 

3038 effect for two years while the new training materials are developed. As noted above, we are 

3039 likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for 

3040 expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS 

3041 farms. 

3042 

3043 As with worker training, the baselines for potential handler training requirements differ 

3044 according to existing California requirements. As explained in the methodology, baseline costs 

3045 are constrained to be less than or equal to those of the potential requirements to avoid 

3046 erroneously estimating a reduction in costs. 

3047 

3048 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the incremental cost of these requirements under the 

3049 assumption that handler training occurs only if a pesticide application is made during the season. 

3050 An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-14) would cost about $553,000 per year ($2.70 per 

3051 larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-15) would cost about 

3052 $680,000 per year ($3.30 per WPS farm). CPHE costs are not affected by these assumptions. 

3053 

3054 TRAIN-16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and 

3055 CPHEs are not required to maintain records of the handlers who have received training, except in 

3056 California. These potential requirements are similar to TRAIN-10 and 11. In total, the cost to 

3057 document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $162,000 to 

3058 $289,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1.40 per larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to 

3059 $3.80 per CPHE. 

3060 

3061 If handler training only occurs in conjunction with a pesticide application, keeping records for 

3062 two years is estimated to cost $150,000 per year, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0.70 

3063 per year. Requiring records be kept for five years is estimated to cost about $276,000 annually 

3064 under this alternate assumption and WPS farms would face an additional $1.40 per year. Costs 

3065 to CPHEs are unaffected by this assumption. 

3066 

3067 TRAIN-18, 19, and 20. Training verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would 

3068 end voluntary programs to issue training verification cards. The cost of the program is the 

3069 opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them; 

3070 EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards. About 22 states and territories currently 

3071 participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, 

3072 Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions 

3073 have requested verification cards. For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, 

3074 Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation. Arkansas, along 

3075 with five of the seven states it represents, participates, as does California and Colorado, along 

3076 with one of the two states it represents. Baseline costs for these three regions, South, California, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

84 

3077 and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the 

3078 states. Baseline costs for the other three regions, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are 

3079 calculated using a 50 percent participation rate because about half the states in these regions 

3080 participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of 

3081 participation, EPA estimates that eliminating the training verification program (TRAIN-18) 

3082 could save about $567,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards. Savings per 

3083 WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only 

3084 occur in states currently participating in the program. 

3085 

3086 Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) would cost about $641,000 annually, or roughly 

3087 $1.60 per WPS farm and $1.50 per CPHE. Costs, however, would only be incurred in states not 

3088 fully participating in the current program. 

3089 

3090 Replacing the voluntary program with a requirement that employees be provided evidence of 

3091 training (TRAIN-20) would, under the current frequency of training, save about $180,000 

3092 annually or about $0.50 per year per WPS farm and $0.04 per CPHE. Savings arise because 

3093 individualized cards are more expensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training 

3094 register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states 

3095 are currently providing cards or otherwise subsidizing them. Further, savings only arise in states 

3096 currently participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs. 

3097 

3098 If training currently occurs only if a pesticide application is made on a WPS farm, the cost saving 

3099 of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to be $498,000 per year while the cost of 

3100 requiring verification cards would be about $566,000 annually. Requiring verification through a 

3101 copy of the training register (TRAIN-20) would save around $158,000 annually, under this 

3102 alternative assumption. 

3103 

3104 3.3.4 Hazard Communication

3105 

3106 Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their 

3107 employees about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry 

3108 operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they are not considered in this analysis. 

3109 As with training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving 

3110 the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. Hazard communication 

3111 requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications. 

3112 

3113 Table 3.3-16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered 

3114 in this category. The table shows the present value of regional compliance cost for the potential 

requirements, PV(RC P), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B 3115 ). 

3116 The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

3117 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

3118 is the requirement to provide workers with crop sheets, which describe the ways in which a 

3119 worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM-04). The 

3120 requirement is estimated to cost $13.0 million annually. The proposed change from central 

3121 posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM-01) entails 

3122 comparatively low cost at $1.1 million per year. 
*** 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(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC 

$1,000 $1,000 

01 Application Information 

Availability 164,954 154,908 10,046 1,143

02 Pesticide Information 

Availability – SDS and 

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

03 Pesticide Information 

Availability – label 59,865 59,791 14,074 1,602

04 Pesticide Information 

Availability – crop sheets 163,774 49,303 114,471 13,029 

05 Record Keeping – 2 years 29,894 3,677 26,217 2,984 

06 Record Keeping – 5 years 32,770 3,677 29,093 3,311 

07 Provide Crop Sheet with 

Label 2 318,330 293,020 25,310 2,881

3125 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3126 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

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

3128 

3129 In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation 

3130 diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in 

3131 Appendix A. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4 

3132 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given 

3133 year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 

3134 applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the 

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

3136 this number. 

3137  Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

3138 (NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 

3139 Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 

3140 farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 

3141 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 

3142 which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn – soybean rotation with some fields 

3143 in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 

3144 and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 

3145 in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 

3146 farm. 

3147  Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 

3148 production, implying about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per 

3149 farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 32). This suggests a typical 

3150 farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two of apple, one of cherry, and one of 

3151 pear. Typical spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 

3152 applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven to the pear, for a total of 

3153 37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

86 

3154 applications per year. 

3155  Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 

3156 vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or 

3157 number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’s climate allows two or even three crops each 

3158 year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 

3159 tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 

3160 Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 

3161 including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 

3162 however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including an herbicide 

3163 treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 

3164 fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 

3165 Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 

3166 however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 

3167 DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide treatments, considering 

3168 tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 

3169 time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagger production activities. 

3170 Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 

3171 pesticide applications. 

3172 Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 

3173 accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 

3174 applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 

3175 about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with 

3176 some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average. 

3177 

3178 HAZCOM-01. Application information. Currently, farm owners or operators must post 

3179 information about a covered pesticide application made within the previous 30 days when 

employees are present3 3180 . This requires time to compile and record the information. Discussions 

3181 with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. 

3182 A sheet of paper is needed to record the information, which takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to 

3183 post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3-17 presents the 

3184 estimated baseline cost per establishment for all regions except for California and 

3185 Texas/Mountain West. Representative states for those regions have provisions similar to the 

3186 proposed requirements. 

3187 

3188 These costs may be underestimated. Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often 

3189 necessary for a single application because the central area is outdoors and the posting can be 

3190 subject to weathering. 

 

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 

3191 Table 3.3-17. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application 

3192 Information. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 15.4 $ 36.26 

Information sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 15.4 $ 1.39 

Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 15.4 $ 7.25 

costr,i,a

B

 $ 44.90 

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

3194 

3195 Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM-01, WPS farms would provide the application 

3196 information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. 

3197 EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minutes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes 

3198 more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a request would occur. It is 

3199 likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assuming a request for 25 percent of applications, or 

3200 3.9 times per year. This is likely to be a significant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the 

3201 application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $10.88 per year, 

3202 making the total cost of the new requirement $48.53 per farm per year. This is also the baseline 

3203 cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a 

3204 provision that employees or their representatives can request the application information. 

3205 

3206 There are no actions required of any other actor. Table 3.3-18 presents the estimated regional 

3207 costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Texas already require the 

3208 display of the additional information. 

3209 

3210 Table 3.3-18. Regional Costs for HAZCOM-01, Application Information, Year 1. 

Region N WPS est RC P RC B

costr,i,a

B

 $ 44.90 

costr,i,a

P

 $48.53 $1,000

South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784 

California 1 24,469 1,187,480 1,187,480 

Southwest 12,629 567,096 612,893 

Subtropical 9,866 443,044 478,823 

Midwest 85,641 3,845,620 4,156,181 

Northeast 40,650 1,825,340 1,972,750 

Ohio Valley 91,166 4,093,724 4,424,322 

Texas/Mountain West 1 48,543 2,355,808 2,355,808 

Northwest 22,890 1,027,861 1,110,869 

U.S. 394,658 $17,986,514 $19,152,909 

3211 Source: EPA estimation. 

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

3213 

3214 The costs of this requirement, both current and potential, recur annually. In estimating the PV of 

3215 costs over a 10-year time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

88 

3216 establishments, which has been declining at a rate of 0.47% annually over the last decade. This 

3217 trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline 

3218 cost is $155 million dollars over 10 years at a 3% discount rate, considering requirements in 

3219 California and Texas (Table 3.3-15). The potential requirement is expected to cost about $165 

3220 million over 10 years. Thus, incremental costs of increasing the information provided about 

3221 pesticide applications are estimated to be about $10.0 million. This corresponds to $1.1 million 

3222 annually and, on average, to be $2.90 per WPS farm per year. If baseline costs are higher than 

3223 estimated due to multiple postings for each application, the incremental cost of this provision 

3224 will be lower. 

3225 

3226 HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04. Pesticide-specific information. Agricultural employers are currently 

3227 required to post information about pesticide applications, including the active ingredient used 

3228 and the product name and registration number. The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would 

3229 require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be 

3230 collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and 

3231 copy the material. The SDS is typically available with the label at distributors and on line. Four 

3232 representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be 

3233 available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually. The cost is 

3234 proportional to the number of applications. 

3235 

3236 An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM-03). The 

3237 cost of this option would be just over $1.6 million annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM3238 04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications. This information would be crop3239 chemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given 

3240 typical cropping practices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would 

3241 likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more 

3242 frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cost of 

3243 this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm. 

3244 

3245 HAZCOM-05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current 

3246 requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an 

3247 application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA 

3248 considered requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be 

3249 materials such as copies of the application information and something in which to keep records. 

3250 Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs over a ten-year period at the national level are 

3251 shown in Table 3.3-14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2.9 to 3.3 million 

3252 respectively, which averages out to be $7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM-05 to $8.40 per 

3253 establishment for HAZCOM-06. EPA assumes that all WPS farms will fall under record 

3254 keeping requirements since over time all are expected to make some pesticide applications. 

3255 

3256 HAZCOM-07. Provision of crop sheets. To support the potential requirement for crop-chemical 

3257 specific hazard information (HAZCOM-04), this proposal would require registrants to provide 

3258 additional safety information along with the pesticide label, which provides use directions. This 

3259 would require the development of new printing templates, which would be a one-time cost for 

3260 each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for 

3261 which the crop is registered. EPA would expect to phase this in over a three year period to allow 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

89 

3262 registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels. It would also increase 

3263 printing costs over the entire time 10-year time period we analyze because of the additional 

3264 volume of material. EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of 

3265 about $25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $2.9 million per 

3266 year. 

3267 

3268 3.3.5 Notification

3269 

3270 Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employers who must provide their 

3271 employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 

3272 information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 

3273 information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 

3274 communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 

3275 pesticide applications. 

3276 

3277 Table 3.3-19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in 

3278 previous tables, it shows the present value of regional compliance costs for the potential 

requirements, PV(RC P), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B 3279 ). 

3280 The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

3281 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

3282 is the requirement to post warning signs for Restricted Entry Intervals every 100 feet around the 

3283 perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this would cost $256 million per 

3284 year in additional signs and labor. Other potentially costly requirements include maintaining 

3285 records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY-04 and 05). These two potential requirements 

3286 would cost about $19.5 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements 

3287 considered by EPA include revisions to warning signs and safety posters (NOTIFY-06 and 14), 

3288 which are expected to cost $97,000 and 108,000 per year respectively. EPA is also proposing to 

3289 allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA 

3290 estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $10,000 per year nationally. 

3291 

Table 3.3-19. Present Value of Costs, Notification Requirements 1 3292 . 

Potential 

Requirement 

PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) 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(RCP

) PV(RCB) 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 

3293 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3294 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

3295 

3296 NOTIFY-01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requirements require the physical 

3297 posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require 

3298 posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the 

3299 REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a 

3300 sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e., both verbal 

3301 communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications 

3302 and these new requirements would not apply to those operations. Costs are expected to vary by 

3303 farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

91 

3304 workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to small-small farm is presented in Table 

3305 3.3-20, as an example. EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral 

3306 notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. 

3307 Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will have to be informed of 

3308 the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multiple 

3309 notifications. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time 

3310 consuming to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs 

3311 already. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be 

3312 double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two 

3313 signs are generally needed for posting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker 

3314 housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY-08). Signs will 

3315 generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by 

3316 the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 

3317 77.2 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per-farm cost is estimated to be between $35 and 

3318 $105 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which 

3319 accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season. 

3320 

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

3322 REI warning signs. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 14.3 $ 20.14 

Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.313 $ 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 

costr,i,a

B

 $ 36.28 

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

3324 

3325 The costs associated with these potential requirements are the material expense of additional 

3326 signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of these costs is a 

3327 reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3-21 presents the 

3328 calculations. We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater 

3329 than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Double notification is still 

3330 required for ten percent of applications. As a result, the expected per-establishment cost 

3331 increases to between $70 and $105, where large farms with many workers are not expected to be 

3332 impacted. Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected per-worker cost decreases to $5 to 

3333 $7. 

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

92 

3335 Table 3.3-21. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for 

3336 NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 10.0 $ 14.09 

Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.313 $ 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 

costr,i,a

B

 $ 71.22 

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

3338 

3339 For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that 

3340 signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of 

3341 the time. Per-establishment cost is calculated to be between $60 and $105 per year and per3342 worker cost to be between $5.60 and $7.80, depending on farm size. 

3343 

3344 Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $7.3 million annually if 

3345 posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $10.5 million annually if posting is 

3346 required for REIs over 48 hours. The estimated incremental costs average $28.70 to $26.80 per 

3347 year per non-greenhouse WPS farm across all farm sizes. 

3348 

3349 These estimates take into consideration the allowance that new signs are to be phased in by the 

3350 third year. 

3351 

3352 NOTIFY-03. Oral notification of REIs in greenhouses. Currently, greenhouses are required to 

3353 post REI warning signs for all pesticide applications; signs are also required to be removed 

3354 shortly after the end of the REI. This proposal would give owners/operators of greenhouses the 

3355 option of simply notifying their employees orally for REIs of four hours or less. For many 

3356 operations, this would lead to savings in the time required to post and remove signs. However, 

3357 some operations may be large enough that orally notifying all their employees would be more 

3358 time consuming. EPA estimates that this revision would save about $10,000 per year nationally 

3359 or about $1.80 per year per WPS greenhouse, on average. As noted above, greenhouses with 

3360 many workers may not alter their practices while greenhouses with relatively few workers would 

3361 save more than the average. 

3362 

3363 NOTIFY-04 and 05. Record keeping of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS 

3364 would require owners/operators to obtain acknowledgement from their employees that the 

3365 employees were notified of REIs. Under NOTIFY-04, these records would be kept for two 

3366 years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY-01 and 

3367 02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to post or 

3368 orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in 

3369 Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, 

3370 obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the document. The annual frequency for each action 

3371 is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, explained above. The cost for large farms is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

93 

3372 estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost-effective to 

3373 post fields when there are many workers. There is also a per-worker cost for providing the 

3374 signature, which EPA estimates to be $1.34 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per 

3375 year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double 

3376 notification products as explained under NOTIFY-03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be 

3377 $3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year. 

3378 

3379 Table 3.3-22. Per-Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs 

3380 for NOTIFY-04, Keep Records of REI notifications. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Prepare copy of warning 28.21 0.033 15.0 14.12 

Information sheet 0.09 1 15.0 1.35 

Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 16.5 23.30 

Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 15.0 7.06 

Folder 0.20 1 0.75 0.15 

costr,i,a

B

 $ 45.98 

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

3382 

3383 EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY-04 is $20.0 million annually. The average cost per 

3384 WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $50.80 per year and is similar for small and 

3385 large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10. NOTIFY-05, with a five3386 year retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage 

3387 container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $20.3 million per year with an 

3388 average cost per WPS farm of $51.40 per year and $7.60 per year per greenhouse. 

3389 

3390 NOTIFY-06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs 

3391 posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, 

3392 would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon and replace the words “Keep Out” 

3393 with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with 

3394 a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used. For 

3395 the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensive. Nationally, this 

3396 revision may cost about $97,000 per year. Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30. For 

3397 NOTIFY-07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application-specific 

3398 information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written. This 

3399 could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8.00 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS 

3400 greenhouses, on average. Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which 

3401 they are required to post REI warning signs. 

3402 

3403 NOTIFY-08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they 

3404 must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if 

3405 worker housing is adjacent to the field. The number of access points to a field is highly variable, 

3406 but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across 

3407 irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipment to enter. We assume about 20 percent of 

3408 farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

94 

3409 rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e., 

3410 costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the 

3411 material cost of the signs. Signs can be reused, so most establishments probably only need two 

3412 or three, i.e., to post one field at a time. Greenhouses, however, must post warning signs for all 

3413 pesticide applications and likely need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots 

3414 simultaneously. 

3415 

3416 NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to 

3417 engender any costs. 

3418 

3419 EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require posting warning signs every 100 

3420 feet around a treated area to alert workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without 

3421 passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09). Size and shape of field are extremely 

3422 variable, but as a scenario that might be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 

3423 40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet, requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in 

3424 total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular 

3425 one-acre plot. Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates 

3426 that this potential requirement could cost over $2.2 billion dollars over ten years at a three 

3427 percent discount rate or about $256 million annually. The annual incremental cost is estimated 

3428 to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $650 for other WPS farms. 

3429 

3430 NOTIFY-10 and 11. Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

3431 Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the 

3432 restricted-entry interval is in effect. Workers must have either read the product labeling or been 

3433 informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. NOTIFY-10 would permit oral 

3434 instruction, but would require more detailed information be provided, which would require more 

3435 time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY-11 

3436 would require that the information also be provided in writing, in the form of crop sheets 

3437 generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about 

3438 $698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIFY-11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are 

3439 expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively. 

3440 

3441 NOTIFY-12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

3442 Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement 

3443 from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record 

3444 sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively). Record keeping is 

3445 expected to cost about $469,000 per year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per 

3446 year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the 

3447 documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm. 

3448 

3449 NOTIFY-14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require 

3450 agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact information for 

3451 medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this 

3452 action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which 

3453 would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost 

3454 growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

95 

3455 considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years. The annualized cost is 

3456 estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. Costs may be somewhat overstated because 

3457 signs are available free through EPA. 

3458 

3459 NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17. Safety displays at decontamination sites. These requirements would 

3460 add additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supplies are located. NOTIFY3461 15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms. 

3462 NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI 

3463 warning signs are posted. The cost of these requirements arises from the cost of new signs and 

3464 the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by 

3465 the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be 

3466 required. EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. 

3467 Table 3.3-23 presents EPA’s estimates of the per-establishment unit costs, assuming that the 

3468 requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur 

3469 much higher cost for posting safety displays with REI signs because they likely post more 

3470 frequently than do small farms. See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02. If 

3471 safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the 

3472 number of postings by shifting to oral notification. 

3473 

3474 Table 3.3-23. Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites 

Establishment Baseline Worker 

Decontamination 

Sites 

(NOTIFY-15) 

Handler 

Decontamination 

Sites 

(NOTIFY-16) 

 With REI Signs 

(NOTIFY-17) 

Small WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.23 $ 7.18 $ 3.54 

$11.34 

Small WPS 

Greenhouse $31.17 

Large WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 

$33.07 

Large WPS 

Greenhouse $42.20 

3475 Source: EPA estimates. 

3476 

3477 Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA 

3478 estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be 

3479 $2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites 

3480 (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be 

3481 obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. 

3482 Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4.7 million 

3483 annually or $11.80 per WPS farm. 

3484 

3485 NOTIFY-18. Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers. WPS currently 

3486 requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that 

3487 proper steps can be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field. Further, if 

3488 there are any changes to the application, e.g., delay in application, change of product (brand), the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

96 

3489 CPHE must immediately inform the client. The latter requirement has raised concerns about the 

3490 practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application 

3491 and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker 

3492 safety is provided in a timely manner. The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must 

3493 inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI 

3494 begins. It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise 

3495 from this revision. 

3496 

3497 Sensitivity Analysis 

3498 The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements 

3499 and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That 

3500 is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide 

3501 applications per year instead of 20 applications. 

3502 

3503 The incremental costs for the potential requirements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 

3504 and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications. This is because the 

3505 baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting 

3506 warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a 

3507 fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications 

3508 results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated by 

3509 allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours 

3510 varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of record keeping 

3511 of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of 

3512 applications. The cost of providing more information upon early entry (NOTIFY-10 and 11) 

3513 varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years 

3514 (NOTIFY-12). Maintaining records for five years (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number 

3515 of applications because of fixed costs of storage. 

3516 

3517 The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI 

3518 warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety 

3519 posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of 

3520 the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY-09) varies with the 

3521 number of applications, but less than proportionally. The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which 

3522 would require safety displays with every REI warning sign. The revisions to clarify when signs 

3523 must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by 

3524 commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18) are not expected to entail costs regardless of the number 

3525 of applications. 

3526 

3527 3.3.5 Age

3528 

3529 EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter 

3530 areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could 

3531 raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid 

3532 employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential 

3533 requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1. 

3534 The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

97 

3535 baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference with labor costs under the 

3536 potential requirement. Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category. 

3537 

Table 3.3-24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1 3538 . 

Region 

NCP

 NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC 

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Minimum Age of 16, 

Early Entry Workers 10,734 9,366 1,367 156 

02 Minimum Age of 18, 

Early Entry Workers 15,974 9,618 6,356 723 

03 Minimum Age of 16, 

Handlers 2 42,290 38,192 4,098 466 

04 Minimum Age of 18, 

Handlers 2 65,019 38,192 26,827 3,053 

3539 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3540 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 3541 Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline.

3542 

3543 AGE-01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is 

3544 considering setting a minimum age for agricultural workers (other than immediate family 

3545 members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restricted-entry interval may 

3546 occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no 

3547 contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. In this analysis, EPA has 

3548 assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on 

3549 average, half of the farm’s workers will be engaged in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a 

3550 farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any 

3551 under-age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum 

3552 age older for these limited events. Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose 

3553 negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs 

3554 associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time. 

3555 

3556 As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 

3557 paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data 

3558 regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age 

3559 and experience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is 

3560 used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field 

3561 workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers 

3562 would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as 

3563 $5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes 

3564 that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers 

3565 during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer. 

3566 

3567 The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or 

3568 an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 18 would impose 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

98 

3569 costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely 

3570 to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management. 

3571 

3572 AGE-03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum 

3573 age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e., those who 

3574 mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS 

3575 although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides 

3576 classified as Category I or II toxicity. EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16-year minimum 

3577 (NOTIFY-03) and an 18-year minimum (NOTIFY-04). 

3578 

3579 Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling 

3580 tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage 

3581 of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages. The wage rate for adult 

3582 handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on-farm to be 

3583 $7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is 

3584 approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valued at 30 percent of 

3585 total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the 

3586 National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied 

3587 pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- and 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 

3588 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that 

3589 handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related 

3590 activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we 

3591 calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year. 

3592 

3593 To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old 

3594 handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35. This would be 

3595 an upperbound, of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years of 

3596 age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by 

3597 adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $21.35 per year. 

3598 

3599 The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the 

3600 number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is 

3601 smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely 

3602 higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none 

3603 are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that 

3604 these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours 

3605 per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment. Labor costs 

3606 assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage. 

3607 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

99 

3608 Table 3-3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age 

Age Category and 

Establishment 

Wage/Hour Hours 

Worked 

Proportion 

of workers 

Total Labor 

Cost 

Baseline, WPS Farm 

14-15 Year Old 10.41 50 0.004 1.92 

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51 

Total WPS farm 12.43 

Baseline, CPHE 

16-17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18 

Minimum Age, 16, WPS 

Farm 

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51 

Adult 20.83 50 0.004 3.84 

Total WPS farm 14.35 

Minimum Age, 18 

Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.021 21.35 

Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64 

3609 Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations. 

3610 

3611 EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large 

3612 WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ 

3613 one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers 

3614 in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group. Table 3.3-26 presents 

3615 EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state 

requirements, RLB, and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RLP 3616 . Incremental labor 

3617 costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect 

3618 and about $880,000 for CPHEs. 

3619 

3620 Table 3.3-26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year 

3621 Age Restriction, Year 1. 

Region NWPS hndlr

B RLP

 RLB

($1,000)

South 36,924 1,116 655 

California 15,365 464 273 

Southwest 7,930 240 141 

Subtropical 6,195 187 110 

Midwest 53,776 1,625 954 

Northeast 25,525 771 453 

Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016 

Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541 

Northwest 14,373 434 255 

U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398 

3622 Source: EPA Estimations. 

3623 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

100 

3624 Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 

3625 for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per 

3626 CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about 

3627 $466,000. The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few 

3628 handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per 

3629 WPS establishment. 

3630 

3631 These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 

3632 Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 

3633 transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults. 

3634 

3635 3.3.6 Entry

3636 

3637 Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 

3638 residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide 

3639 applications occur. Unlike the training and notification examples, which require farm operators, 

3640 agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to 

3641 purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials. These 

3642 potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain 

3643 places. The primary cost of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management 

3644 burden of scheduling work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts. This 

3645 burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the 

3646 diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the potential 

3647 requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27. 

3648 

Table 3.3-27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1 3649 . 

Region NCP

 NCB 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 

3650 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3651 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3652 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

101 

3653 ENTRY-01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is 

3654 restricted to appropriately attired handlers. A proposed requirement defines the entry restricted 

3655 area during an application on a WPS farm as extending 25 to 100 feet from the edge of the 

3656 treated area, depending on the application method. This restriction already applies to WPS 

3657 nurseries and greenhouses. Enlarging the restricted area could affect the scheduling of work 

3658 activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application. 

3659 This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely 

3660 preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments. 

3661 

3662 ENTRY-02. Entry into a restricted area. The proposed requirement specifies that a handler 

3663 working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a 

3664 person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area. Since current 

3665 requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restriction simply clarifies 

3666 the applicator’s responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs. 

3667 

3668 ENTRY-03 and 04. Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double 

3669 notification products. During agricultural emergencies, agricultural employers can send workers 

3670 into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI. One potential requirement 

3671 (ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an individual worker could spend in an area treated 

3672 with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; 

3673 see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02). Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the 

3674 time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout 

3675 this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is 

3676 about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, 

3677 EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve double 

3678 notification products, i.e., those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. Thus, only 

3679 a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a 

3680 product in any given year. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be 

3681 involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers 

3682 if the time limit is reached. This will involve some management burden, but the effect is not 

3683 quantifiable. 

3684 

3685 The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 

3686 of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 

3687 needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely 

3688 negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 

3689 reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, 

3690 tasks that would not be of long duration on a small operation. 

3691 

3692 ENTRY-05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by 

3693 administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for 

3694 agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered 

3695 eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05). The impact of this requirement would be to 

3696 expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address 

3697 unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment. 

3698 This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

102 

3699 developed the following scenario: an establishment may face a problem, which might be 

3700 addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g., 25 percent. The 

3701 inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on 

3702 those acres, e.g., five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, 

3703 including family farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to 

3704 pesticide labels under the WPS. In this case, EPA calculates that 9.8 percent of farms have early 

3705 entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop farms, 

3706 nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-using farms and the assumption that there is an 

3707 early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications. 

3708 

3709 Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and 

3710 those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive 

3711 to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using 

3712 pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS. 

3713 According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including 

3714 government payments) was $50.5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and 

3715 greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b). From the special tabulation requested from NASS, 

3716 there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). 

3717 Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $260,000 per year and a five percent 

3718 loss would be around $13,000. Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss 

3719 using these figures. 

3720 

3721 Table 3.3-28. Per-Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY-05. 

Action/Material value of 

production 

affected 

acreage 

likelihood cost 

Five percent yield loss $13,024 25% 9.8% $320.00 

Total $320.00 

3722 Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers. 

3723 

3724 Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent 

3725 likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement. Under this scenario, the expected loss per 

3726 establishment would be $320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not 

3727 happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e., the five percent 

3728 loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to the national level indicates losses 

3729 of $247 million per year. 

3730 

3731 ENTRY-06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could 

3732 address the issue of handler exposure to cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. ENTRY-06 would 

3733 establish a monitoring program while ENTRY-07 would simply impose a limit on the time 

3734 handlers could work with these chemicals. 

3735 

3736 Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing program to monitor 

3737 pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and N3738 methyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to 

3739 participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests 

3740 for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

103 

3741 can decline to participate. ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the 

3742 handler’s cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such 

3743 pesticides until levels return to normal. 

3744 

3745 Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential 

3746 costs for a U.S. program. The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the 

3747 Northwest is presented in Table 3.3-29. Washington reports that the voluntary program cost 

3748 $115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given 

3749 that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a 

3750 per-handler cost of $55.14. Based on the description of how the program follows up with an 

3751 examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e., those employed on 

3752 farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 

3753 14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region. 

3754 

3755 The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler’s 

3756 time that is spent getting tested. Each participating handler must go to a medical center and 

3757 submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate. EPA assumes this takes 

3758 about one and a half hours, on average, including travel and wait time. Washington reports that 

3759 386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up 

3760 testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in 

3761 the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also 

3762 show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow-up tests, which implies that they spend 

3763 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As shown in Table 3.3-29, the expected cost per WPS 

3764 handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $13.32. 

3765 

3766 Table 3.3-29. Per-WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring 

3767 in NW. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0.141 $ 7.76 

Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0.141 $ 4.40 

Follow-up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2.07 0.027 $ 1.16 

costr,NW,a

B

 $ 13.32 

3768 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

3769 

3770 California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers 

3771 working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA 

3772 estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55 

3773 for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers. See Appendix A for details. The baseline cost 

3774 in all other regions is zero. 

3775 

3776 To estimate national participation in a cholinesterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates 

3777 from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small 

3778 farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 45.8 percent 

3779 of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

104 

3780 accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utilize pesticides each year. We further estimate 

3781 that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers 

3782 are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year. We assume that 

3783 the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and 

3784 carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops. Thus, the expected per-WPS handler 

3785 cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing 

3786 cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of follow-up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the 

3787 baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE 

3788 handlers. 

3789 

3790 The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and 

3791 would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and 

3792 would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year. 

3793 

3794 In theory, a monitoring program would not be expected to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If 

3795 inhibition were seen, a handler could still work with other classes of pesticides. Nor would a 

3796 program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers 

3797 would likely be available. In practice, however, finding another application job or another 

3798 handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of 

3799 participating Washington handlers showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant 

3800 removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely. 

3801 

3802 An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with 

3803 cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-07). The primary cost of this approach would 

3804 be tracking the time handlers spend with such products. Data are not available for a precise 

3805 estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the cost as follows. Each handler, including self3806 employed handlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, 

3807 a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the 

3808 accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three 

3809 minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes 

3810 for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average, and about 30 

3811 percent of applications by CPHE handlers. Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we 

3812 calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of 

3813 CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate 

3814 the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates the cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about 

3815 $4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, 

3816 but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around 

3817 $80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not 

3818 include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time 

3819 limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches the limit and 

3820 alternative jobs are not available. 

3821 

3822 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

3823 

3824 Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable 

3825 adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

105 

3826 pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable. The potential requirements in this 

3827 category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are 

3828 mostly in additional materials such as additional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit 

3829 testing. Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping. Some actions or 

3830 material will be required of all WPS farms that hire handlers, because they are part of routine 

3831 preparations. Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually 

3832 made. Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of 

3833 PPE. 

3834 

Table 3.3-30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1 3835 . 

Potential Requirement 

NCP

 NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC 

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640 

02 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, WPS 52,052 52,047 5 0.5 

03 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, CCA 13,338 13,325 13 1 

04 Revise closed-system 

standards 158,472 93,133 65,339 7,437 

05 Contaminated PPE 

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0 

3836 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3837 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3838 

3839 PPE-01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure 

3840 that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the 

3841 baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time 

3842 of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of 

3843 fit testing. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been 

3844 incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are 

3845 fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers. 

3846 

3847 The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on-farm under 

3848 provisions similar to OSHA requirements, including that those using respirators are medically 

3849 cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers 

3850 to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening. The actions and 

3851 materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31. The medical screening consists of a health survey 

3852 that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a 

3853 licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency 

3854 assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large-small crop farms and one handler 

3855 from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying 

3856 about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used 

3857 pesticides have respirator requirements and growers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

106 

3858 necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 

3859 percent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow-up examination, which implies 

3860 about 13.7 percent of all handlers. The examination is expected to take about two hours, 

3861 including travel and wait time. The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of 

3862 an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007). Once cleared, the handler 

3863 takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. 

3864 The material for the fit test costs about a dollar (OSHA, 2004). As currently required, if the 

3865 respirator is used, the employer must provide instructions on proper use. Actual respirator use is 

3866 likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost-per WPS handler of the 

3867 requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31. 

3868 

3869 Table 3.3-31. Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Initial survey $20.83/hr 0.5 hour 0.595 $ 6.19 

Medical evaluation $42.91/hr 5 min 0.595 $ 2.13 

Time for follow-up exam $20.83/hr 2 hour 0.137 $ 5.70 

Follow-up medical exam $101.00 1 0.137 $ 13.82 

Time for fit test, with travel $20.83/hr 1.5 hour 0.595 $ 18.58 

Fit test material $1.00 1 0.595 $ 0.59 

Employer instructs on 

proper use 

$28.21/hr 6 min 0.347 $ 0.98 

Handler receives 

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.347 $ 0.72 

costr,i,a

P

 $ 48.72 

3870 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

3871 

3872 The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due 

3873 to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements 

3874 already apply to commercial enterprises, this cost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the 

3875 proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost. However, the employer of the CPHE 

3876 handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the 

3877 fit test and evaluation. The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 

3878 per year. 

3879 

3880 EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $10.6 

3881 million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire 

3882 handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost. 

3883 

3884 PPE-02 and 03. Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan 

3885 production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 

3886 soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 

3887 damaging levels. Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction 

3888 of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the 

3889 exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

107 

3890 employed by a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE-03). The requirement would only 

3891 apply to employees who are not certified. Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms 

3892 would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be 

3893 available under different provisions. Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exception will be 

3894 negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, 

3895 coveralls) on rare occasions. 

3896 

3897 PPE-04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements 

3898 allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in 

3899 which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is 

3900 considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a substitution is 

3901 permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and 

3902 CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed systems now. Others may have a system that is 

3903 already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some 

3904 establishments may purchase a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE. In 

3905 addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is 

3906 not currently required under federal regulations, but is required by California. 

3907 

3908 Given the variability in possible impacts, estimation of the cost of the potential requirement is 

3909 difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms and 

3910 50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPE 

3911 and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and large3912 small WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal 

3913 filters each year. This probably overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system 

3914 as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also 

3915 assumes that about 20 percent of systems will require maintenance each year, entailing costs of 

3916 $86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an 

3917 action is then modified by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, 

3918 which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of 

3919 Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Table 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA’s 

3920 estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large-small WPS farms. The baseline cost 

3921 for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year. 

3922 

3923 Table 3.3-32. Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed 

3924 systems. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.67 $ 12.11 

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.13 $ 11.66 

costr,i,a

B

 $ 43.96 

3925 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3926 

3927 The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that 

3928 CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

108 

3929 person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expected cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and 

3930 $35.27, respectively. Note that California systems are all in compliance with the potential 

3931 definition of a closed system. However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping. 

3932 

3933 Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for large and large-small WPS farms to comply with the 

3934 proposed standard. In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA 

3935 assumes another 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms already have a system that 

3936 would meet the potential requirement. As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, 

3937 these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct 

3938 maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, 

3939 likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and 

3940 maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent 

3941 of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a 

3942 closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all 

3943 probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use 

3944 pesticides in a given year. 

3945 

3946 Table 3.3-33. Per- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for 

3947 closed systems, Year 1. 

Action/Material (j) wage/price 

wj

unit 

time/quantity 

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency 

Prob(j|i) 

cost 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04 

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 

New Closed System $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04 

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 

File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.04 

Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03 

costPPE,a

P

 $ 177.52 

3948 Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA 

3949 assumptions. 

3950 

3951 Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA 

3952 assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those 

3953 with closed systems) will have a maintenance event to report. All establishments with closed 

3954 systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in 

3955 the file. As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the 

3956 first year for large and large-small WPS farms. In subsequent years, these farms will not need to 

3957 purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average across all the affected 

3958 WPS farms. 

3959 

3960 A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and 

3961 per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

109 

3962 handler enterprises, respectively. The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions 

3963 about the use of closed systems on these establishments. For example, we assume that all 

3964 CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed 

3965 systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, one third 

3966 are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one-third would obtain a new system, and 

3967 one-third would rely on PPE. 

3968 

3969 EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $32.5 

3970 million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately. Over 

3971 ten years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million. 

3972 Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about 

3973 $4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 

3974 million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00, 

3975 and to CPHEs of $48.00. Note that the average impact per establishment includes those 

3976 establishments unaffected by the change in standards. 

3977 

3978 PPE-05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated 

3979 PPE. The proposed revision would specify that contaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The 

3980 change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact. 

3981 

3982 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

3983 

3984 The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 

3985 exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define 

3986 expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees 

3987 to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA 

3988 characterizes some potential cost impacts. A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these 

3989 potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34. 

3990 

Table 3.3-34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1 3991 . 

Potential Requirement 

NCP

 NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC 

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0 

02 Decontamination 

requirements, early entry 

events – workers 33 11 22 3 

03 Decontamination requirements 

- handlers 434 434 0 0 

04 Showers for handler 

decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636 

05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0 

06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596 

3992 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 3993 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3994 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

110 

3995 SUPPLY-01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that 

3996 “enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing 

3997 tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, 

3998 supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per worker would be considered 

3999 sufficient. This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of 

4000 water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is 

4001 likely that all WPS farms are in compliance with the potential requirement such that the 

4002 incremental cost will be zero. Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery 

4003 systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field. 

4004 

4005 SUPPLY-02. Quantity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated 

4006 areas during an REI, the WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and 

4007 the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient. 

4008 The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons. 

4009 Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to 

4010 be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in 

4011 the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. 

4012 (NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost 

4013 of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually. This amounts to less than 

4014 $0.01 per WPS farm per year. 

4015 

4016 SUPPLY-03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Currently, the WPS 

4017 requires that “enough” water be available for handlers to use for routine and emergency washing, 

4018 including emergency eye-flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the 

4019 rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This 

4020 potential revision would codify the existing definition of ‘enough’ water for decontamination. 

4021 The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy 

4022 manual. As noted in SUPPLY-01, water availability would not generally be a problem. 

4023 

4024 Supply-04. Provide showers for handler decontamination. This option would require all 

4025 establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes. The impact of this 

4026 requirement would be substantial. Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material 

4027 and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities would cost about $105,000 

4028 (Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars 

4029 for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000 

4030 per WPS farm. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. In practice, most 

4031 WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all 

4032 applications themselves or turn to CPHEs. The cost for current CPHEs to install showers could 

4033 be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand 

4034 for pesticide applications. In the short term, EPA estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers 

4035 employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs. Some would likely transfer to more 

4036 general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages. Others would likely find 

4037 employment with CPHEs, for which demand would increase. Thus, the final number of jobs lost 

4038 as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain. 

4039 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

111 

4040 There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an 

4041 emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not including installation 

4042 (Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be 

4043 appropriate for mixing/loading sites on-farm. If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially 

4044 workers, with an opportunity to clean off any residues before returning home, an outdoor shower 

4045 with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some 

4046 farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the 

4047 more substantial facilities described above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion. 

4048 

4049 SUPPLY-05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements 

4050 specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working with 

4051 pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potential requirements would require there to be a 

4052 sustained flow of water. SUPPLY-05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all 

4053 permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per minute. There would be little or no 

4054 impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes 

4055 such as diluting concentrated pesticides. 

4056 

4057 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separate eyewash station. The average cost of a 

4058 portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 2008; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of 

4059 CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates 

4060 the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million. Assuming that annual 

4061 maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this 

4062 potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate. 

4063 

4064 3.3.9 Emergency Response

4065 

4066 The time between an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in 

4067 mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide. Current requirements require “prompt” action 

4068 in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific 

4069 pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, 

4070 however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is 

4071 considering potential requirements that would more precisely define standards for emergency 

4072 response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as 

4073 explained below. 

4074 

4075 EMERG-01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define 

4076 expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes 

4077 (EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02). Estimation of a precise cost of this requirement is 

4078 not possible as field conditions are highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies existing 

4079 requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones 

4080 suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The 

4081 most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers will be identifying the pesticide to 

4082 which an individual is exposed. In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be 

4083 the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, 

4084 especially if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different 

4085 farm. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

112 

4086 

4087 EMERG-03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would 

4088 define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes 

4089 (EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04). Neither potential time frame is likely to result in 

4090 measurable impacts. In particular, identification of the pesticide to which the individual is 

4091 exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers. 

4092 

4093 

4094 This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters 

4095 discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section. 

4096 Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requirements 

4097 for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal 

4098 on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed 

4099 revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pesticide exposure, both from 

4100 reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day-to-day exposure. 

4101 

4102 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

113 

4103 Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements 

4104 

4105 EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide 

4106 handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler 

4107 establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers. Out of the potential 

4108 requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the 

4109 requirements the Agency is proposing.

4110 

4111 Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements. 

Identifier Title 

INFORM: Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification 

TRAIN-02 Immediate Training of Workers, with 2-Day Exception 

TRAIN-03 Annual Training of Workers 

TRAIN-06 Expand Worker Training 

TRAIN-08 Increase Worker Trainer Qualification Standards 

TRAIN-10 Keep Worker Training Records – 2 years 

TRAIN-12 Annual Handler Training 

TRAIN-14 Expand Handler Training 

TRAIN-16 Keep Handler Training Records – 2 years 

TRAIN-20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training 

HAZCOM-01 Application Information Available on Request 

HAZCOM-02 Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS 

HAZCOM-05 Keep Application Information – 2 years 

NOTIFY-01 Post Warning Signs if REI Greater than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production 

NOTIFY-03 Oral Notification if REI Less than 4 Hours (Greenhouse) 

NOTIFY-06 Revise Warning Signs 

NOTIFY-08 Define ‘Adjacent’ Worker Housing as within 100 Feet 

NOTIFY-10 Oral Information for Entry into Restricted Areas 

NOTIFY-12 Keep Records of Early Entry – 2 years 

NOTIFY-14 Revise Basic Pesticide Safety Display 

NOTIFY-15 Add Safety Display to Worker Decontamination Sites 

NOTIFY-16 Add Safety Display to Handler Decontamination Sites 

NOTIFY-18 Notification of Application by Commercial Applicators 

PROTECT: Age, Entry, and PPE 

AGE-01 Minimum Age of 16 for Early Entry 

AGE-03 Minimum Age of 16 for Handlers 

ENTRY-01 Expand Restricted Area 

ENTRY-02 Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area 

ENTRY-03 Limit Early Entry Time during Agricultural Emergencies to 4 Hours 

PPE-01 Require Respirator Fit Test 

PPE-02 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for WPS Employees working under a CCA 

PPE-03 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for Employees working under CCAs 

PPE-04 Revise Closed-System Standards 

PPE-05 Render Contaminated PPE Unusable 
*** 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 Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing 

EMERG-01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency 

EMERG-03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency 

4112 

4113 This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in 

4114 developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 

4115 different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 

4116 more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The 

4117 emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the 

4118 agricultural workers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while 

4119 minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular. 

4120 

4121 In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered 

4122 the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory 

4123 development process (e.g., farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and 

4124 grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers, and other federal 

4125 agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this 

4126 document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-benefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, 

4127 for example, equity considerations (e.g., potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the 

4128 feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experiences. A discussion of all 

4129 these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 

4130 

4131 4.1 Training Options 

4132 

4133 The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and 

4134 handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. 

4135 Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take 

4136 appropriate steps to protect themselves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting 

4137 to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise. 

4138 

4139 4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training 

4140 

4141 EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to 

4142 their entry into a pesticide-treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two-day grace 

4143 period (TRAIN-02). Requiring employers to provide the complete training to workers before 

4144 they enter a treated area would ensure that workers understand how to protect themselves when 

4145 working in pesticide-treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary 

4146 workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than 

4147 five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category. 

4148 These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

115 

4149 complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in 

4150 pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this proposal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers 

4151 will receive full training before they enter previously treated areas. These changes should 

4152 decrease the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better 

4153 informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area. 

4154 

4155 EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an 

4156 increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different 

4157 times. The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace period), is estimated to cost $7.20 per year per 

4158 WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers 

4159 themselves may bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the 

4160 amount they pick rather than by the hour. 

4161 

4162 4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and 

4163 handler training 

4164 

4165 EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN-03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety 

4166 training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years. This means that 

4167 employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at 

4168 appropriate intervals. Pesticide safety educators have noted that “repeating basic safety 

4169 messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007).” Thus, retention of 

4170 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training. 

4171 Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better 

4172 than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their 

4173 patients. Thus, while both alternatives would be an improvement over the current five year 

4174 cycle, annual training is likely to provide substantially greater benefits than biennial training. 

4175 

4176 Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS 

4177 farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about 

4178 $7.90 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17.00 per 

4179 year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler training is 

4180 estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively. 

4181 

4182 While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA 

4183 balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more frequent training. As 

4184 noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by 

4185 workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 

4186 exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Moreover, training reinforces many of the other 

4187 WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs. 

4188 

4189 The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel. This 

4190 option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 

4191 10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see 

4192 Chapter 2.2.1). EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms 

4193 (those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15.90 per year under TRAIN-03 to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

116 

4194 $13.60 per year. However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive 

4195 training, possibly for several years. 

4196 

4197 4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and 

4198 handler training 

4199 

4200 Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule 

4201 amendments and affects multiple areas of the proposed changes. A major goal of this expansion 

4202 is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS. The new 

4203 training reinforces EPA’s strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic 

4204 pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure 

4205 risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide-specific information that could lead to 

4206 complacency in some cases and excess concern in others. 

4207 

4208 EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additional 

4209 topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and 

4210 handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed 

4211 requirements for early entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard 

4212 communication materials, especially the SDS. 

4213 

4214 The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 

4215 minutes. The longer training sessions would cost an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year 

4216 for worker training and an estimated $3.20 per WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for 

4217 handler training. 

4218 

4219 EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of 

4220 SDS as the primary means of hazard communication. These alternatives (TRAIN-07 and 15) 

4221 would be slightly more expensive since explaining the details of crop sheets would be more 

4222 complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this 

4223 estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in 

4224 HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively. 

4225 

4226 Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to 

4227 justify the costs of development, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers 

4228 with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used. Providing such 

4229 information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide 

4230 safety messages. 

4231 

4232 4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards 

4233 

4234 EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS-trained 

4235 handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving training to those qualified to train certified applicators or those 

4236 who have completed a “Train-the-Trainers” program. An alternative evaluated here is to limit 

4237 training only to those who have completed a Train-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09). As 

4238 discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

117 

4239 may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to 

4240 train. The unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especially 

4241 language and literacy issues, implies that there are substantial benefits to having trainers that 

4242 have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population. These trainers, 

4243 i.e., those completing the Train-the-Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety 

4244 information, the knowledge of adult education principles, and the communication skills needed 

4245 to reach low-literacy audiences. Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding 

4246 and retention of pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase the 

4247 likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training 

4248 and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their family members. Trainers of 

4249 certified applicators will have the technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the 

4250 information to a farmworker audience. The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about 

4251 $2.80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have 

4252 completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the 

4253 provision will be delayed for two years. 

4254 

4255 4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17: Record keeping 

4256 

4257 EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler 

4258 (TRAIN-16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may 

4259 benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that 

4260 applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS 

4261 farms about $4.10 per year for worker training and less than $1.00 for handler training. For 

4262 CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler training is about $3.00 per year. 

4263 Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of 

4264 training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years. Information from 

4265 regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify 

4266 training through records retained by the employer. Therefore EPA concludes that the longer, 

4267 five-year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the two-year period. 

4268 

4269 4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification 

4270 

4271 There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification 

4272 cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS. The 

4273 purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with 

4274 training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they 

4275 change employers, thus reducing duplicative training. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems 

4276 with the current voluntary program for training verification in which workers and handlers 

4277 receive cards they can show to subsequent employers. Primary among the problems is that cards 

4278 may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate 

4279 verification. These problems reduce employers’ ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the 

4280 ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the 

4281 voluntary program to justify the expenditure. Eliminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated, 

4282 in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would 

4283 accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

118 

4284 per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification 

4285 (TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program. 

4286 

4287 However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the 

4288 proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of 

4289 training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable. The 

4290 information will thus be more reliable. The proposed record keeping requirements discussed in 

4291 Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting documentation. EPA also notes that a majority 

4292 of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at 

4293 harvest as these workers are typically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. 

4294 Thus, the time these workers spend in training – especially repeated training – reduces their 

4295 wages. 

4296 

4297 Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of 

4298 being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time 

4299 required to fill them out individually. In addition to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training 

4300 register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with 

4301 sufficient information for their records, while verification card of the sort typically used would 

4302 not. If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain 

4303 all the information, they are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training. 

4304 

4305 4.2 Hazard Communication Options 

4306 

4307 The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for 

4308 workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as “central 

4309 posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following 

4310 information: location and description of treated areas, the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide 

4311 registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to 

4312 be applied, and the REI, specified in duration (e.g., hours or days). Posting is required for 30 

4313 days following the expiration of the REI. 

4314 

4315 EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and 

4316 handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be 

4317 exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting 

4318 requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing 

4319 areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where 

4320 workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult 

4321 to make changes to the information prior to beginning the application and to ensure that the 

4322 information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to 

4323 workers and handlers. 

4324 

4325 4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information 

4326 

4327 EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information, 

4328 available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request (HAZCOM-01). At the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

119 

4329 same time, this revision would eliminate the requirement for the application records to be posted 

4330 at a central location. In addition, the application information would add the start and end times 

4331 of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 

4332 million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 

4333 percent of applications. 

4334 

4335 Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best 

4336 be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps that workers and handlers can take to protect 

4337 themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and 

4338 handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leading to increased potential 

4339 for exposure. In addition, workers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their 

4340 workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an 

4341 effective means to communicate with employees. 

4342 

4343 However, this detailed information would be important in the event a worker or handler is 

4344 poisoned and needs medical attention, for example. It is the healthcare provider who most needs 

4345 to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment. The proposed 

4346 change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application 

4347 information for workers and handlers 

4348 

4349 4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication 

4350 Materials 

4351 

4352 EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the product label in 

4353 addition to the current application record (HAZCOM-02). The cost of this requirement is 

4354 estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3. One alternative would 

4355 be to add only the pesticide label to the current information (HAZCOM-03), which would cost 

4356 about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are based on posting the information 

4357 at a central location. A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM-04), 

4358 estimated to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm. This cost estimates is based on the distribution 

4359 of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area. 

4360 

4361 As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with 

4362 overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations 

4363 and inappropriate concern in others. A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through 

4364 frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is particularly valuable in 

4365 case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provide the bulk of this value. While the pesticide 

4366 label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for 

4367 safe use and handling. The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and 

4368 on treatment. 

4369 

4370 4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention 

4371 

4372 As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of 

4373 verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

120 

4374 (HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. 

4375 $7.60 per WPS farm), However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more 

4376 than two years provides little or no additional benefit. 

4377 

4378 4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets 

4379 

4380 EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop-specific hazard sheets along with the labels 

4381 for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alternative approach to hazard 

4382 communication under HAZCOM-04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training 

4383 under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know 

4384 how to interpret and use the crop sheets. As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not 

4385 clear that this additional information provides substantial additional benefits. While this 

4386 additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse 

4387 workers with complex pesticide application information that would be counterproductive to 

4388 providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages. EPA estimates this 

4389 requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for 

4390 ten years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be 

4391 substantial as they would have to be location-specific. 

4392 

4393 4.3 Notification Options 

4394 

4395 In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirements, the WPS also 

4396 requires that specific information be provided in certain situations. This information is often 

4397 necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk. 

4398 

4399 4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production 

4400 

4401 The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about 

4402 areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and 

4403 posted warnings. NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an 

4404 estimated cost of $10.5 million per year, and NOTIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer 

4405 than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7.3 million per year. On a per-farm basis, estimated to 

4406 cost are about $26.80 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $18.70 per year for NOTIFY-02. A 

4407 WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from 

4408 NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is approximately $1.40 per worker. 

4409 

4410 Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor 

4411 contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 

4412 (Calvert et al., 2008). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of 

4413 awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the 

4414 magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, 

4415 including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours. 

4416 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

121 

4417 4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production 

4418 

4419 The current rule requires posting of the warning sign for all applications in enclosed space 

4420 production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries). EPA proposes to relax this requirement and 

4421 allow employers the options of oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four 

4422 hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would 

4423 accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect. 

4424 

4425 Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently 

4426 enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without 

4427 increasing workers’ risk of exposure. 

4428 

4429 4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification 

4430 

4431 To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs 

4432 shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requiring that agricultural employers create 

4433 and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the 

4434 notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 years (NOTIFY-05). Given the frequency of 

4435 pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required. As explained in Chapter 3, 

4436 these provisions would cost about $20.0 to $20.3 million per year, respectively. 

4437 

4438 The addition of the proposed recordkeeping component for oral notification could encourage 

4439 employers to ensure workers receive accurate information, which in turn could lead to fewer 

4440 workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure. EPA has 

4441 insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing 

4442 requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternatives. Posting 

4443 for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at 

4444 lower cost. 

4445 

4446 4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs 

4447 

4448 EPA is proposing minor modifications to the current WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon 

4449 as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket 

4450 “Keep Out.” The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be 

4451 about $0.25 per WPS farm per year. 

4452 

4453 EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol, but more critically considered 

4454 requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field. As a result, 

4455 the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in 

4456 Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the 

4457 worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits. 

4458 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

122 

4459 4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign 

4460 

4461 When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where 

4462 they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated 

4463 area, or an area affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker 

4464 housing. EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a 

4465 visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area 

4466 (NOTIFY-08). This is a clarifying revision and EPA anticipates negligible impacts. It will 

4467 largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations. 

4468 

4469 EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and 

4470 every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this provision would 

4471 cost about $648 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude 

4472 walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would 

4473 substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in 

4474 cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits. 

4475 

4476 4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry 

4477 tasks 

4478 

4479 The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in 

4480 effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no-contact,” “short-term,” “irrigation,” or 

4481 “agricultural emergency activities” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The 

4482 WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these 

4483 exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed 

4484 on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker 

4485 exits the field. EPA is proposing that agricultural employers provide more detailed information 

4486 to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional 

4487 notification includes the type of contact permitted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with 

4488 which workers must be provided. NOTIFY-10 would require that this information be provided 

4489 orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annually or about $1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY-11 

4490 would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 

4491 million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year. 

4492 

4493 Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in 

4494 workers (Calvert et al., 2008). Providing workers with more information about how to protect 

4495 themselves from pesticide exposure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of 

4496 pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. Given the 

4497 differences in language and frequent low English literacy rates among farmworkers, written 

4498 information may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information. 

4499 

4500 4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks 

4501 

4502 Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will 

4503 provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

123 

4504 signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required 

4505 information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12). The estimated national cost 

4506 for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average. 

4507 Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm 

4508 per year, but the longer period appears to provide no significant benefits. According to 

4509 discussions with state agencies, a two-year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs. 

4510 

4511 4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display 

4512 

4513 The WPS currently requires agricultural establishments to post a pesticide safety poster listing 

4514 basic pesticide safety information. With NOTIFY-14, the Agency is proposing to augment the 

4515 required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information, 

4516 including contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agency. This additional 

4517 information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e., 

4518 recognizing pesticide poisoning and knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure 

4519 incident. If there are any changes in contact information, posters must be updated promptly. It is 

4520 critical that such information be readily available because workers and handlers are unlikely to 

4521 retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally. 

4522 

4523 The incremental cost of NOTIFY-14 would be the time required to include this information on 

4524 existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is 

4525 estimated to be about $108,000 or about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. 

4526 

4527 4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays 

4528 

4529 Currently, safety information must be displayed at a central location on the WPS farm, along 

4530 with any application-specific information (see HAZCOM-01, Section 4.2.1). EPA proposes that 

4531 employers maintain the central safety display and also display the information at 

4532 decontamination sites. NOTIFY-15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses 

4533 handler sites. The value of displaying the information in a main area through which workers will 

4534 frequently pass is to reinforce pesticide training. However, it is also important that the 

4535 information be displayed at sites where the information will be most useful, that is, along with 

4536 decontamination supplies. 

4537 

4538 The cost of these requirements comes from the cost of new posters or displays and the labor to 

4539 post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is 

4540 estimated to be $1.9 million or $4.90 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements 

4541 will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, 

4542 with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the 

4543 average. The cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 

4544 or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers. 

4545 

4546 An alternative (NOTIFY-17) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI 

4547 warning signs. Although the additional safety display would help to reinforce safety training 

4548 because they would increase the number of times they were seen, there is no particular value to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

124 

4549 associating the displays with REI warnings as accidental exposure can occur in many situations, 

4550 not just entry into a recently treated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to 

4551 be about $4.7 million annually, or around $11.80 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly double the 

4552 cost of NOTIFY-15 and 16 combined. 

4553 

4554 4.3.10 NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators 

4555 

4556 The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about 

4557 pesticide applications before the application takes place and immediately upon any change, 

4558 including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is proposing to codify 

4559 existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, minor changes 

4560 in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REI would not have to be reported. No 

4561 costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the resolution of regulatory uncertainty. 

4562 

4563 4.4 Age Requirement Options 

4564 

4565 The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered by the 

4566 regulation. This is problematic for two reasons. First, young people may be more susceptible to 

4567 pesticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generally take more 

4568 risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential 

4569 consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have 

4570 substantial benefits, specifically workers performing tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide 

4571 handlers where exposure may be high. 

4572 

4573 Under the proposal, these age restrictions do not apply to persons covered by the immediate 

4574 family exemption. 

4575 

4576 4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities 

4577 

4578 Early entry activities are allowed under certain situations, including agricultural emergencies 

4579 where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop. The fact that the REI has not 

4580 expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding 

4581 adolescents from these activities protects their more susceptible systems from this exposure. 

4582 Reduced exposure can reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related 

4583 illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic and developmental effects that may be associated 

4584 with children’s exposure to pesticides. 

4585 

4586 EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in early entry 

4587 activities (AGE-01), which is estimated to cost about $163,000 per year, or $0.40 per year per 

4588 WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of employing adults at a higher wage rate for these 

4589 activities. However, the cost of this provision is actually one of scheduling available workers 

4590 rather than employing different workers. This option would potentially protect about 19,000 

4591 workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8.60 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a 

4592 minimum age of 18 (AGE-01), is estimated to cost $760,000 per year, or $1.90 per year per WPS 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

125 

4593 farm. This option would cover about 86,900 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $8.70 per 

4594 adolescent. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the two options is very similar. 

4595 

4596 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

4597 exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in early entry activities under the EPA’s 

4598 proposed option. 

4599 

4600 4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides 

4601 

4602 Similarly, EPA considered two options for a minimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE4603 03, a prohibition on persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides and AGE-04, 

4604 which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 18 years of age and older. 

4605 

4606 The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early 

4607 entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work directly with pesticides, there is greater potential 

4608 for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons younger than 16 from 

4609 handling pesticides (AGE-03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000 

4610 adolescents currently handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 18 (AGE-04), 

4611 would protect about 4,800 adolescents, including around 200 adolescents working for CPHEs. 

4612 

4613 The total cost of the proposed minimum age is estimated to be $466,000 per year and would 

4614 likely only cost WPS farms about $2.40 per year, on average. Given the small number of 

4615 adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticides, the cost is about $460 per adolescent. The 

4616 estimated cost of limiting handling to persons over 18 years of age is $3.1 million per year 

4617 nationally. This would cost an average WPS establishment about $11.20 annually and a CPHE 

4618 about $317 annually, although the latter estimate in particular is likely to be highly conservative 

4619 because of the number of hours adolescents are assumed to work. Considering that nearly 4,800 

4620 adolescents may be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $630 per adolescent. The 

4621 cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat less for the proposed 

4622 option. However, the estimate for the minimum age of 18 is heavily influenced by the 

4623 assumptions about the number of hours worked by adolescents in CPHEs. 

4624 

4625 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

4626 exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in handling activities under the EPA’s 

4627 proposed option. 

4628 

4629 4.5 Entry Restriction Options 

4630 

4631 Existing entry restrictions are primarily aimed at protecting farm workers during and after 

4632 pesticide applications. The goal of the revisions is to strengthen those protections. 

4633 

4634 4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas 

4635 

4636 While the WPS currently includes requirements for entry-restricted areas around the treated area 

4637 during applications to nurseries and in greenhouses, there are no entry-restricted areas during 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

126 

4638 applications on farms and forests. Currently, a worker on a farm may be assigned to work in an 

4639 area immediately adjacent to the treated area where a pesticide application is taking place. Many 

4640 incidents of drift and off-target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is 

4641 cited in a SENSOR-Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor contributing to pesticide 

4642 poisoning incidents reported among agricultural workers from 1998-2005 (Calvert et al., 2008). 

4643 

4644 Additionally, the current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to 

4645 contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 

4646 trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regulatory language fails to provide 

4647 handlers with a clear course of action if they observe a person, other than a trained and properly 

4648 equipped handler, to be present in the entry-restricted area. 

4649 

4650 EPA proposes ENTRY-01, the establishment of entry-restricted areas during applications for 

4651 farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry-restricted areas for all WPS-covered 

4652 workers is a simple way to improve worker safety. A second revision, ENTRY-02, specifies that 

4653 handlers must “cease application” if a non-handler enters the treated and entry-restricted areas. 

4654 The revisions entail minor regulatory improvements and clarifications while resulting in 

4655 potentially significant impacts on reducing incidents of worker exposure to drift. The cost 

4656 estimated for restricting entry to perimeters adjacent to an area being treated is negligible, 

4657 because workers can be reassigned temporarily while the application takes place. 

4658 

4659 4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities 

4660 

4661 As described above (Section 4.3.6), the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that 

4662 certain activities considered critical to successful agricultural production can take place during a 

4663 REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions allow entry into an area under an REI for activities 

4664 with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigation activities, certain short-term activities, and 

4665 activities associated with agricultural emergencies. The “limited contact” and irrigation 

4666 exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but existing regulations do 

4667 not establish a limit on the duration workers are allowed in the treated area for agricultural 

4668 emergencies. Since length of exposure is a factor in the amount of residue a person may contact, 

4669 limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive. 

4670 

4671 EPA considered two options. ENTRY-03 would impose a four-hour time limit in a 24-hour 

4672 timeframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while 

4673 ENTRY-04 would impose an eight-hour time limit for the agricultural emergency exception if a 

4674 product requiring double notification (both oral and posting) was utilized. 

4675 

4676 As explained in Section 3.3, neither option entails measurable costs, given the rarity that double 

4677 notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emergency, and the possibility 

4678 of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY-03, which would provide 

4679 some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY-04, is proposed. 

4680 

4681 Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated 

4682 exposures (ENTRY-05). Agricultural production is subject to many weather-related risks and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

127 

4683 problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estimates that eliminating the exception to the REI 

4684 could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production. 

4685 

4686 4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition 

4687 

4688 EPA considered requiring a monitoring program for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers 

4689 working regularly with certain organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. If a 

4690 handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, they would be restricted from 

4691 further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, 

4692 modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $95 per 

4693 handler involved in the program, or $15.2 million annually. 

4694 

4695 The Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold 

4696 of concern; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger 

4697 level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondary benefit of the program, according to the Washington 

4698 experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application 

4699 practices, identified by handlers showing some cholinesterase inhibition, but not sufficient to 

4700 warrant removal from further handling tasks. Most recommendations stemming from 

4701 Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is 

4702 proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to improve handler training 

4703 and encourage the proper use of PPE on all agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. 

4704 Together, the training and PPE proposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced 

4705 by all handlers, including the select population of handlers that are at risk for cholinesterase 

4706 inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected 

4707 to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem 

4708 after the exposure has occurred. 

4709 

4710 EPA also considered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N-methyl 

4711 carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30-day period (ENTRY-07). This option is 

4712 estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. However, the benefits of the approach are highly 

4713 uncertain. Data to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available. 

4714 

4715 4.6 PPE Options 

4716 

4717 Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be critical for reducing exposure by routes such as 

4718 inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate 

4719 equipment and the situations in which it is required. Provisions in the WPS support the label 

4720 directions by setting criteria to ensure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriately. 

4721 Potential revisions reflect the goal of enhancing protections for workers and handlers. 

4722 

4723 4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator 

4724 PPE 

4725 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

128 

4726 Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, and 

4727 application. The current WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ respirators fit 

4728 correctly and that the handler is trained to use it, but the regulation does not explicitly require fit4729 testing. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not 

4730 fit properly may result in preventable handler exposure to pesticides. 

4731 

4732 EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing into WPS 

4733 requirements. The proposal will establish a consistent approach for all employers to follow that 

4734 will improve protection when a handler uses a pesticide product that requires a respirator. 

4735 OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specific standard for fitting the respirator on the 

4736 user, instruction on how to recognize when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to 

4737 take if this occurs. There is also a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated 

4738 to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be 

4739 about $82 per handler that obtains a fit test or $10.6 million per year. The average annual cost 

4740 would be about $54.40 for WPS farms that hire handlers. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA 

4741 guidelines currently, given the nature of the business. 

4742 

4743 Ensuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness, ultimately leading to a 

4744 reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

4745 

4746 4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting 

4747 under CCAs 

4748 

4749 The current PPE exemptions for employees working under the supervision of certified crop 

4750 advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be 

4751 unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while the supervisor may be unaware of the level of 

4752 contact the employee has with treated surfaces. This is different from the ability of the CCA to 

4753 make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk and the revisions will retain the exemption 

4754 for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 

4755 

4756 The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemption for the employees of WPS farms (PPE-02) 

4757 and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE-03) who are not certified but are working under a 

4758 CCA. Such employees would be required to use the label specified PPE and have available 

4759 decontamination supplies and emergency assistance would be provided in case of a suspected 

4760 pesticide-related illness. 

4761 

4762 As discussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associated with these revisions is likely negligible 

4763 because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to 

4764 perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for uncertified employees 

4765 (Jones and Smith, 2006). 

4766 

4767 4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions 

4768 

4769 The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using a closed system for 

4770 mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, however, does not provide specific criteria for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

129 

4771 an acceptable closed system. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the 

4772 existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs 

4773 may have inadequate systems resulting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the 

4774 area. The proposed revision, PPE-04, would establish specific criteria for closed systems that are 

4775 enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards 

4776 are based on California criteria. Properly designed and employed closed systems afford superior 

4777 protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment 

4778 

4779 EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $6.9 million per year, with 

4780 average annualized costs of about $25 for large and large-small WPS farms (those making more 

4781 than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than 

4782 $750,000 in annual sales), and about $48 per year for CPHEs. The costs include the purchase of 

4783 new systems by some firms or farms and some increase in costs for the more frequent utilization 

4784 of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of cost4785 effectiveness, considering the number of handlers, including self-employed commercial handlers 

4786 and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year. 

4787 

4788 4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable 

4789 

4790 The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly. PPE 

4791 can become contaminated with pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose 

4792 the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE, if it 

4793 cannot be properly cleaned, be rendered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in 

4794 response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE may be reused if not 

4795 destroyed. 

4796 

4797 This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary exposure resulting from the 

4798 wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from 

4799 overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are discarded in a trash bin, a person in need of 

4800 additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment 

4801 apart would make it less likely that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 

4802 pesticide residues. 

4803 

4804 The cost is expected to be negligible. The employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under 

4805 the existing requirements and there is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer 

4806 to render the PPE unusable. 

4807 

4808 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options 

4809 

4810 On-site decontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The 

4811 WPS and associated guidance specifies the materials that should be available. 

4812 

4813 4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Decontamination supplies for workers 

4814 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

130 

4815 The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in 

4816 fields previously treated with pesticides, but does not specify the quantity of water that is 

4817 necessary. Existing guidance indicates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine 

4818 situations. SUPPLY-01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any 

4819 regulatory uncertainty. No cost is expected with this revision. 

4820 

4821 Currently, the same standard applies to workers engaged in activities in fields during a REI. 

4822 Given the potential for higher levels of residue remaining on plant material, accidental contact 

4823 (e.g., a worker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in 

4824 routine situations. SUPPLY-02 would increase the amount of water that must be available to 

4825 three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additional water would be 

4826 less than $0.01 per WPS farm. Water is generally available at negligible pumping cost or from a 

4827 water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in 

4828 comparison. 

4829 

4830 4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers 

4831 

4832 Similar to the situation for workers, WPS requires water be available for handlers without 

4833 specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates three gallons per handler is enough for routine 

4834 washing, and emergency decontamination. SUPPLY-03 would incorporate this guidance to 

4835 eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above, no cost is expected with this revision. 

4836 

4837 EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for 

4838 handlers, SUPPLY-04. The benefits of this option are highly uncertain. Provisions for 

4839 emergency decontamination, including eye rinsing, are already in place or proposed (see 

4840 SUPPLY-05 below). Showering prior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting 

4841 pesticide residues to the handler’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would 

4842 routinely utilize showers even if they were available. Representatives of agricultural employers 

4843 on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experience, when showers are available that handlers 

4844 opt not to use them. There are a number of reasons people may not avail themselves of shower 

4845 facilities, including the need for a change of clothes or a simple preference for showering in the 

4846 privacy of their own home. Some cultural beliefs and practices may factor into this decision not 

4847 to utilize existing shower facilities (Arcury et al. 2001). 

4848 

4849 Requiring employers to provide showers would be costly; the estimated cost of building each 

4850 shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 

4851 construction alone, with WPS farms bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for 

4852 CPHEs to install showers would be about $2.5 billion. This estimate does not include the cost of 

4853 maintenance. SBREFA panelists commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS 

4854 requirement, many agricultural employers would avoid the high cost of compliance by choosing 

4855 not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower 

4856 facilities for handlers would cause employers to avoid hiring handlers and could lead to job loss 

4857 of over 150,000 handlers in the agricultural industry. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this 

4858 may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher-paid positions. Less expensive options, 

4859 such as simple outdoor showers with privacy screens, might be used. But such options are even 

4860 less likely to be used by an employee than a more complete facility. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

131 

4861 

4862 The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN-14, including take-home 

4863 exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed 

4864 clarification to the eye-rinsing requirements in SUPPLY-05 were also considered in comparing 

4865 the relative costs and benefits of requiring showers for handlers. These provisions can 

4866 effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost. 

4867 

4868 4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing 

4869 

4870 The current rule requires employers to provide water to handlers for use in case of an ocular 

4871 exposure to a pesticide when the pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have 

4872 indicated that, even with protective eyewear, handlers, particularly those mixing and loading 

4873 pesticides, can be exposed from splashes that enter the eye. This can result in serious injury to 

4874 the eye. 

4875 

4876 For similar ocular risks in industrial situations, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that 

4877 specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY-05, to adopt these 

4878 requirements for establishments with permanent pesticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 

4879 3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would typically have a 

4880 source of water. 

4881 

4882 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved 

4883 to temporary sites, i.e., fields to be treated. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, 

4884 there are some drawbacks to the use of portable stations. According to state field personnel, they 

4885 are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is 

4886 also not clear that they are substantially more effective than the traditional water bottle in rinsing 

4887 the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. EPA estimates the cost to be about $13.6 million per 

4888 year nationally, or over $55 per year per farm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 

4889 (Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that maintenance costs are ten percent of the purchase 

4890 price. The cost estimate also assumes that the stations last ten years, which may overestimate 

4891 their durability. 

4892 

4893 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options 

4894 

4895 The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” 

4896 transportation to a health care facility in the event of a pesticide exposure emergency. The term 

4897 “prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in seeking medical attention during an emergency may 

4898 endanger the exposed worker or handler. The time between an accident and receipt of medical 

4899 care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning. 

4900 

4901 OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the 

4902 requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not 

4903 life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differences between a WPS 

4904 establishment and typical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

132 

4905 agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker 

4906 and to provide transportation. 

4907 

4908 EPA proposes EMERG-01 and EMERG-03, which would require employers to begin transport 

4909 for workers and handlers to a medical facility within thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. 

4910 The employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable 

4911 information, to the treating medical personnel (see HAZCOM-02). EPA also considered 

4912 requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transportation to workers and handlers 

4913 within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG-02 and 04). A shorter time 

4914 frame is clearly preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impose measurable costs, 

4915 particularly as cell phones become more readily available and service becomes more reliable. 

4916 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

133 

4917 Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule 

4918 

4919 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the worker protection 

4920 standards. EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $61.9 and 

4921 $72.4 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates 

4922 for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer series of data that show slower declines over 

4923 time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $63.6 to $74.1 million per year. Using 

4924 a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $60.8 and $73.1 million per 

4925 year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the 

4926 proposed training and notification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major 

4927 driver of the total cost is the large number of establishments that are covered by the WPS, nearly 

4928 400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 

4929 commercial pesticide application firms including self-employed commercial applicators. Given 

4930 a three percent discount rate, the cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of 

4931 $750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $350 and $400 per year. The incremental cost to 

4932 small WPS farms is estimated to be between $130 and $150 per year. For small farms, the cost 

4933 represents 0.1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the 

4934 WPS are those agricultural establishments, including crop farms, livestock operations with crop 

4935 production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides. The impact on family 

4936 farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost about $60 

4937 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 farms out of about 500,000 family farms that use 

4938 pesticides. Commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the 

4939 WPS, with an annual incremental cost between $170 and $190, although self-employed 

4940 commercial applicators will face costs of only about $80 per year. Forestry operations are also 

4941 covered by WPS, but we lack the data on co-occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities 

4942 (hand labor) on these establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. 

4943 Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both 

4944 time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries. 

4945 

4946 These costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $25 to $30 per year per 

4947 employee, not including self-employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 

4948 farms) who benefit from some of the revisions. 

4949 

4950 The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for 

4951 two reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of 

4952 individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we 

4953 have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, 

4954 farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide 

4955 safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the 

4956 farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of 

4957 all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed 

4958 temporarily for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers 

4959 will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications 

4960 to specific fields) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated 

4961 assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

134 

4962 those farms. In reality, most WPS requirements cover farmworkers who engage in hand labor 

4963 activities associated with crop production. 

4964 

4965 A more realistic estimate would consider that much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that 

4966 workers are not involved in hand labor activities. For example, the primarily livestock 

4967 operations that also produce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like corn and soybean 

4968 that are highly mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and 

4969 employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only the handler 

4970 requirements would apply. They would be required to: 

4971  Conduct handler pesticide safety training; 

4972  Maintain records of pesticide applications; 

4973  Provide handler pesticide safety training; 

4974  Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies; 

4975  Comply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and 

4976  Comply with all PPE requirements. 

4977 However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities would not be required to: 

4978  Conduct worker pesticide safety training; 

4979  Provide worker pesticide safety displays; 

4980  Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor 

4981  Provide notification of REIs, either orally or by posting. 

4982 If we separate the 153,000 primarily livestock farms from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and 

4983 their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor 

4984 activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $58.8 million 

4985 per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively 

4986 conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements and includes many crop 

4987 farms that will not be using hand labor in production. 

4988 

4989 A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 farms producing field crops, such as grains, 

4990 oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, in the same category as the predominantly livestock operations. 

4991 Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but 

4992 not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WPS. In this scenario, which assumes over 84,000 

4993 farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, workers and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total 

4994 incremental costs are estimated to be between $39.9 and $44.6 million annually. It is difficult to 

4995 assess the extent of bias in this estimate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the 

4996 individual requirements, but many farms that mainly produce field crops will also produce fruit 

4997 and vegetable crops that utilize hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily 

4998 produce fruit and vegetable crops will also produce field crops and some portion of their work 

4999 force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered farms we include nearly 

5000 11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or tobacco as our categorization of the data does 

5001 not allow us to separate farms of these types. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco 

5002 production often entails hand labor activities, so we include them in the covered farms. 

5003 

5004 It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a subset of farms, the estimated per-farm 

5005 impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ 

5006 more workers per farm than do livestock operations. If we consider the livestock operations to 

5007 be ‘handler only’ farms, the impacts on them is much smaller, on average, than to crop farms. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

135 

5008 Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $180 to $190 per year, on average, 

5009 while the estimated average impact to small ‘handler only’ farms is less than $50 per year. Large 

5010 crop farms, in contrast, are estimated to bear additional cost of $370 to $440 per year, on 

5011 average, which is slightly higher than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated 

5012 incremental cost to small crop farms is $140 to $160 per year, very close to that associated with 

5013 the upper bound of the national incremental cost. 

5014 

5015 This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisions to the WPS that were selected on the 

5016 basis of the costs, estimated in Chapter 3, and benefits, described in Chapter 2, as well as other 

5017 considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of 

5018 revisions as this would not contribute additional information to the decision-making process. 

5019 The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requirements, discussed in Chapter 4, 

5020 are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. For example, the relative net 

5021 benefits of annual to biennial training (TRAIN-03 and 04, see Section 4.1.2) would not be 

5022 substantially altered if paired with written information about a pesticide if entering a field under 

5023 a REI (NOTIFY-11) instead of oral information (NOTIFY-10) (see Section 4.3.6). Pesticide 

5024 safety training provides workers with generic information about potential effects of pesticides 

5025 and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to forget such lessons over time. Providing specific 

5026 information at the time of potential exposure makes the training lessons actionable, but merely 

5027 making the specific information more tangible will not make two-year old generic lessons more 

5028 memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected 

5029 revisions to alternative packages of the rejected options would be redundant. 

5030 

5031 To formalize this mathematically, let the net benefits of Option A be designated NB(A). Then, if 

5032 

5033 NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and 

5034 

5035 NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then 

5036 

5037 NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any other combination for the two components. 

5038 

5039 Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, that is, the option of making no 

5040 changes to existing requirements. 

5041 

5042 This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the 

5043 cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 presents the estimation where Section 5.2.1 addresses 

5044 the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 presents the costs of the proposed hazard 

5045 communication and notification components, Section 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed 

5046 minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements, and Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

5047 proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up 

5048 the components and presents the total estimated cost of the proposed rule. Section 5.3 then 

5049 discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 5.4 presents the analysis of small 

5050 business impacts. 

5051 

5052 5.1 General Methodology 

5053 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

136 

5054 The most straightforward approach to estimating the cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs 

5055 of the individual regulations contained therein. While largely independent of each other, the cost 

5056 of a suite of regulations is not necessarily the sum of the costs of individual regulations, 

5057 however. In some cases, there is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of 

5058 application information. Agricultural employers are required to have the information available 

5059 for employees and to retain the information in their records, but the same document can be used 

5060 for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from 

5061 the total. 

5062 

5063 In other cases, there is overlap without complete duplication as, for example, when one 

5064 regulation requires additional content on a sign, which increases the material cost, and another 

5065 regulation requires more frequent use of signs. These cases require a more complicated 

5066 adjustment in which common costs are subtracted (e.g., the cost for the lower number of signs), 

5067 but additional costs must be included (e.g., the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker 

5068 and handler training, the interactions between increased frequency and increased content 

5069 (duration) are particularly complex and the simplest approach is to re-estimate the incremental 

5070 costs for a subset of the regulations before summing them with the other regulations. 

5071 

5072 That said, the simple sum of the proposed revisions is $63.7 million dollars, which is slightly 

5073 lower than the estimated range of the total cost. 

5074 

5075 The general methodology for estimating the cost of a suite of individual requirements is similar 

5076 to that for the potential requirements. We begin by estimating the cost per actor of the suite of 

5077 requirements by summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting 

5078 for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this 

5079 is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that 

5080 may be more stringent than the current federal standard. Actors, again, are the various 

5081 establishments, i.e., farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their 

5082 employees. 

5083 

5084 Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements 

5085 within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs. 

5086 

ܿݐݏ݋ோ,a

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௑

௧

௥

൅⁄െ෍ ቎෍ ݓa · ܪ௦,a,௝

௑

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݆ሻ

௝

൅෍ܿ௠ · ܯ௦,a,௠

௑

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݉ሻ

௠

቏

௥א௦

5087 

where costR,a

X 5088 t is the expected annual cost for the proposed requirements in protective category R 

5089 = training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emergency preparedness, and decontamination supply. 

5090 All other variables are as previously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, 

5091 baseline, and sr indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element 

5092 in regulation r, which duplicates or adds to the costs in r. Duplicate costs arise when different 

5093 regulations require the same activity or material, e.g., a document or a sign. Additional costs 

5094 arise if different regulations increase costs in different ways, e.g., requiring more information in 

5095 one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another. 

5096 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

137 

5097 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

5098 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 

5099 

௜,ோܥܴ

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋ோ,a

஻

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

5100 

5101 for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions. 

5102 

ோܥܰ

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܴܥோ,௜

௑

௧

௜

5103 

5104 Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. As with 

5105 the individual requirements, we use a ten-year time horizon. 

5106 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜

௑൯ൌ෍ ܴܥோ,௜

௑

௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

5107 

5108 

5109 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 

5110 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫோ,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜஻൯

5111 

5112 National incremental cost, PV(NICR), is calculated the same way. 

5113 

5114 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 

5115 

ܥܫܣோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫோሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ் െ 1

5116 

5117 where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 

5118 previously defined. 

5119 

5120 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 

5121 

ܸܲሺܴܥܫ௜ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫோ,௜൯

ோ

5122 

5123 Again, this is done for national level cost, as well as for annualized costs. 

5124 

5125 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

5126 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

5127 entity. 

5128 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

138 

௘,ோܥܧ

௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋ோ,௔

௑ ൈ ܰ௔,௘

a

5129 

where ECR,e

X 5130 is entity cost, Na,e is the number of actors per entity, and other variables are as 

5131 previously defined. An entity is an establishment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size 

5132 category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment and the 

5133 workers, by type, in its employ. We then calculate the PV of costs over a ten-year time horizon, 

5134 assuming that the number of workers will not change for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize 

5135 the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the effect of spreading the cost of any required 

5136 investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment. 

5137 

5138 Step 8. Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline 

5139 regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective 

5140 categories. 

5141 

௘ܥܫܧ

௑ ൌ ෍ ܥܧோ,௘௉ െ ܥܧோ,௘஻

ோ

5142 

5143 For the purpose of the per-entity analysis, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 

5144 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained information on the average number of 

5145 workers employed by various types and sizes of operations. Size is based on annual revenues, 

5146 where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gross sales and a small feedlot makes less than 

5147 $2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the 

5148 agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1-1 presents the characteristics used for the per-entity 

5149 analysis. 

5150 

5151 Table 5.1-1. Average Number of Workers and Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size.

Farm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers 

Large ≥ $750,000 20.0 2 

Small < $750,000 3.6 0.41 

Large-Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1 

Medium-Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3.2 0 

Small-Small < $10,000 2.5 0 

1 5152 Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots 

5153 into large-small entities with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium-small 

5154 entities with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and small-small entities with annual 

5155 revenue less than $50,000.

5156 

5157 Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater number of workers than do small farms. This 

5158 distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farms producing oilseeds and grains 

5159 where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the 

5160 largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseries also employ a large 

5161 number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for 

5162 certain seasons. Temporary workers also likely explain how small-small farms, with annual 

5163 sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

139 

5164 provisions, especially the notification requirements, only apply if the worker is on the 

5165 establishment during application, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI. 

5166 

5167 EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large 

5168 farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throughout 

5169 this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per 

5170 year. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that 

5171 applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one 

5172 or two handlers could make or assist in this number of applications, especially as the employer is 

5173 likely to be an applicator and as commercial applicators are likely to be hired for applications of 

5174 some of the more hazardous pesticides such as soil fumigants. 

5175 

5176 5.2 Cost Estimation 

5177 

5178 This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly 

5179 detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other 

5180 components are presented in more summary fashion. Details of the estimation can be found in 

5181 Appendix B. 

5182 

5183 5.2.1 Training Component 

5184 

5185 As an example, we explain the estimation of costs associated with training requirements in some 

5186 detail. 

5187 

5188 The proposed changes to the training requirements consist of several options pertaining to 

5189 worker training: TRAIN-02, Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions; 

5190 TRAIN-03, Annual worker training; TRAIN-06, Expanded worker training content (increased 

5191 duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN-08, Stricter requirements for worker trainers; and TRAIN-10, 

5192 Record keeping for two years. It also includes several options pertaining to handler training: 

5193 TRAIN-12, Annual handler training; TRAIN-14, Expanded handler training content (increased 

5194 duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN-16, Record keeping for two years. EPA is also proposing 

5195 to require employers to provide verification of training, i.e., a copy of the training register, to 

5196 their employees, TRAIN-20. 

5197 

5198 Step 1. Calculate the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a 

5199 protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs. 

5200 

ܿݐݏ݋ோ,a

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௑

௧

௥

൅⁄െ෍ ቎෍ ݓa · ܪ௦,a,௝

௑

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݆ሻ

௝

൅෍ܿ௠ · ܯ௦,a,௠

௑

௧

· Prob௧ሺ݉ሻ

௠

቏

௥א௦

5201 

5202 for X = proposed and baseline. 

5203 

5204 Table 5.2-1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training 

5205 regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

140 

5206 across farms, we modify the baseline for TRAIN-03, Annual Training, along the lines of that 

5207 shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a-21. Otherwise, there are clearly common baselines for the 

5208 differing worker training and handler training elements. The proposed requirements merely 

5209 extend current practices in different ways, e.g., in the content, which determines the duration of 

5210 the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08 all 

5211 represent the same baseline for WPS establishments, which entail the provision of worker 

5212 training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from 

5213 the total. Similarly, TRAIN-12 and 14 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide 

5214 handlers and the cost of TRAIN-14 is simply subtracted from the total. 

5215 

5216 Table 5.2-1. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5217 (WPS Farms), Year 1 

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 

costTRAIN,a

B 48.17 16.56 10.93 24.09 

costTRAIN,a

B

Cal 81.12 34.13 16.39 44.68 

5218 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5219 

5220 The last row of Table 5.2-1 presents the total for the California baseline. California already 

5221 requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the 

5222 cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records to be kept for handler training. 

5223 See Appendix B.1. 

5224 

5225 Table 5.2-2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, 

5226 we present the common baseline for multiple requirements, rather than repeat them. The main 

5227 difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program 

5228 (TRAIN-18) and the extended training required in California. 

5229 

5230 Table 5.2-2. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5231 (Employees) 
*** 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 

costTRAIN,a

B 3.92 5.48 5.32 

California 

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 5.04 0.00 0.00 

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10 

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57 

TRAIN-20 0.53 1.08 1.13 

costTRAIN,a

B 5.56 22.46 21.80 

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00 

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94 

TRAIN-20 0.26 0.26 0.28 

costTRAIN,a

B 3.66 5.39 5.22 

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00 

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94 

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 

costTRAIN,a

B 3.40 5.12 4.94 

5232 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5233 

5234 The same process applies to the cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for 

5235 ease, EPA firsts re-estimates the per-actor cost for worker training, covered by TRAIN-02, 03, 

5236 06, and 08, and for handler training covered by TRAIN-12 and 14. The proposed worker 

5237 training requirements include immediate training with limited exceptions, annual training, 

5238 increased training content (duration), and heightened standard for trainers. Because of the 

5239 requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newly hired 

5240 employees, EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3.2 trainings per 

5241 year, in lieu of 2.4 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 

5242 1.15 trainings per year, up from 0.7 sessions in the baseline. As for TRAIN-08 individually, 

5243 EPA assumes that 85 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 

5244 15 percent by people who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program. These percentages are 

5245 multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or 

5246 probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two required trainers. The per5247 farm cost for the revised worker training is estimated to be about $90 per year for large farms 

5248 and $33 per year for small farms (Table 5.2-3). Record keeping costs, TRAIN-10, are similarly 

5249 adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes. 

5250 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

142 

5251 Table 5.2-3. Per-WPS farm Costs for proposed worker training requirements. 

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity 

probability cost 

Large WPS Farm 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 2.692 $ 76.47 

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.475 $ 13.49 

costTRAIN,a

P $ 89.96 

Small WPS Farm 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.980 $ 27.83 

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.173 $ 4.91 

costTRAIN,a

P $ 32.74 

5252 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5253 

5254 The per-worker unit cost is similarly estimated to be $9.43, as shown in Table 5.2-4. 

5255 Considering the expanded content and annual training requirement, workers will spend 45 

5256 minutes of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be 

5257 trained each year, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to 

5258 immediate training and leave employment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that 

5259 about five percent of workers will fall under the exception, although most will receive full 

5260 training within a couple of days. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral 

5261 safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis. 

5262 

5263 Table 5.2-4. Per-worker Costs for proposed worker training requirements. 

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity 

probability cost 

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 45 min 0.903 9.09 

Receive Safety Information 

(delayed training) $13.43/hr 10 min 0.048 0.11 

Provide Safety Information $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23 

Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00 

costTRAIN,a

P $ 9.43 

5264 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5265 

5266 Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the 

5267 trainings. The combined costs are shown in Table 5.2-5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As 

5268 noted in Chapter 3.3, the training cost borne by the establishment will depend on the number of 

5269 handlers employed. The probability that a WPS farm holds a training session will increase in 

5270 comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that 

5271 there will be four handler trainings for every five large WPS farms and one handler training for 

5272 every two large-small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the 

5273 probability the training is led by a particular category of trainer, which is unchanged from the 

5274 baseline. 

5275 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

143 

5276 Table 5.2-5. Per-Establishment Costs for proposed handler training. 

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity 

probability cost 

Large WPS Establishments 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24 

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03 

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.608 $17.15 

costr,a

P $24.43 

Large-small Establishments 

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.070 $ 2.65 

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89 

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72 

costr,a

P $ 15.27 

5277 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5278 

5279 The combined effect of the handler training will result in per-firm costs of $41.75 for CPHEs, 

5280 assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year, on average. The per-handler unit costs are 

5281 estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers, which is simply the 

5282 wage for one hour spent in training. 

5283 

5284 Table 5.2-6 presents the per-establishment unit costs and their sum, given the new unit costs 

5285 estimated for the combined worker training requirements and the combined handler training 

5286 requirements. 

5287 

5288 Table 5.2-6. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5289 (Establishments) 

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 

costTRAIN,a

P 127.77 54.58 36.83 44.40 

5290 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5291 

5292 Finally, Table 5.2-7 presents the compliance costs per employee for the proposed requirements. 

5293 Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more 

5294 frequent trainings are required by TRAIN-03 for workers and TRAIN-10 for handlers. 

5295 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

144 

5296 Table 5.2-7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5297 (Employees) 

Regulation WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler 

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 9.43 0.00 0.00 

TRAIN-10 0.13 0.00 0.00 

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10 

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57 

TRAIN-20 0.37 0.34 0.36 

costTRAIN,a

P 9.93 21.73 21.03 

5298 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5299 

5300 These estimates are for immediate implementation of all requirements. Some elements will be 

5301 delayed to allow for the development of new training material and so that sufficient qualified 

5302 trainers can be trained. For simplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the 

5303 implementation period that account for all interactions, we evaluate the costs given immediate 

5304 implementation of all requirements and then given a two-year delay in the implementation of all 

5305 requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds. 

5306 

5307 These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with training whether or not a 

5308 pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS farms find it more cost-effective 

5309 to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the 

5310 moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity analysis, we consider two alternative 

5311 scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost-minimizing agent, will delay training until a 

5312 pesticide application is necessary, thus saving the cost of training if pesticides are not needed 

5313 during the year. This involves adjusting the probabilities used to estimate the expected cost to 

5314 account for the farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. In the second alternative, we 

5315 assume that WPS farms could delay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal, 

5316 especially the stricter requirements for immediate training and on trainer qualifications, delaying 

5317 training may prove costly because workers cannot be brought into compliance with sufficient 

5318 speed. Under this scenario, only the probabilities in the baseline are adjusted to account for 

5319 farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. As explained later, the cost estimates are 

5320 similar across these three scenarios. 

5321 

5322 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

5323 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 

5324 

௜,ோܥܴ

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋ோ,a

௑

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

5325 

5326 for X = P and B. 

5327 

5328 Table 5.2-8 presents this calculation for the baseline. Costs per actor are given in the row 

5329 immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of 

5330 the products is given in the right-hand column. EPA estimates that, nationally, current 

5331 regulations cost about $18.3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses 

5332 pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15.7 million annually. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

145 

5333 

5334 Table 5.2-8. Regional Baseline Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 

Region

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

Na,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $2,361

Na,Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 586

California

costTRAIN,a

B $81.12 $34.13 $16.39 $44.68 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

Na,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $3,345

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

Na,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 623

Na,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $1,906

Na,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,765

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

Na,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $2,871

Na,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3,171

Na,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

5335 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5336 

5337 Table 5.2-9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. 

5338 Summing the per-farm/firm and per-employee costs results in an estimate of $50.9 million 

5339 dollars for the first year, assuming full implementation and all WPS farms conducting training. 

5340 If WPS farms can delay training until necessitated by a pesticide application, the cost is 

5341 estimated to be $43.4 million. 

5342 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

146 

5343 Table 5.2-9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

UCo

P

a $127.77 $54.58 $39.83 $44.40 $9.93 $21.73 $21.03 RCoi

P

t=1

Region N ($1,000) i at

South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $6,865 

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

5344 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5345 

5346 Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. 

5347 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜

௑൯ൌ෍ ܴܥோ,௜

௑

௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

5348 

5349 Costs may vary over time because a few requirements will not be implemented immediately. As 

5350 noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes 

5351 all requirements are implemented immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are 

5352 delayed two years. Further, the number of entities and workers is expected to change over time, 

5353 as discussed in Chapter 3.3.2. 

5354 

5355 Table 5.2-10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the 

5356 proposed package of training regulations. Over ten years, the PV of the national cost in the 

5357 baseline is estimated to be about $153 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is 

5358 $425 million. 

5359 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

147 

5360 Table 5.2-10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN 

5361 only) 

Region PV(RCo

P

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo 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 

5362 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5363 

5364 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 

5365 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫோ,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ,௜஻൯

5366 

5367 The final two columns of Table 5.2-10 present the expected regional level incremental costs, i.e., 

5368 the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs for the training 

5369 components. Regional costs range from a low of $9.1 million over 10 years for the Southwest, 

5370 which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

5371 Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $56.9 million in the 

5372 Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and 

5373 Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differing number of farm and 

5374 commercial pesticide operations and differing numbers of agricultural workers and pesticide 

5375 handlers. The exception is California, which incurs relatively low incremental costs because its 

5376 training standards are higher than current federal requirements. 

5377 

5378 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 

5379 

ܥܫܣோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫோሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ் െ 1

5380 

5381 where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 

5382 previously defined. 

5383 

5384 The right-hand column of Table 5.2-10 shows regional and national annualized incremental 

5385 costs. For the training requirements, the proposed regulations are expected to cost the 

5386 agricultural industry between $23.9 and $31.0 million annually, given a 3% discount rate. The 

5387 range stems from the implementation schedule, where some requirements will be phased in over 

5388 two years. For reference, the sum of the incremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 

5389 million per year. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

148 

5390 

5391 The assumption that all WPS farms conduct training before determining that a pesticide 

5392 application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed 

5393 revisions. If WPS farms only conduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated 

5394 to be between $20.2 and $26.3 million, given that some requirements will be phased in over two 

5395 years. If WPS farms are currently able to wait until a pesticide application is needed but will not 

5396 risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $26.4 and $33.5 million 

5397 per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s best 

5398 estimate. 

5399 

5400 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 

5401 

ܸܲሺܴܥܫ௜ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫோ,௜൯

ோ

5402 

5403 This step will be done after estimating the costs of the proposed requirements in the other 

5404 categories. 

5405 

5406 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

5407 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

5408 entity. 

5409 

௘,ோܥܧ

௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋ோ,௔

௑ ൈ ܰ௔,௘

a

5410 

5411 Initially, we will simply examine regional variation in cost-per-entity for farms in general, 

5412 distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual 

5413 sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annual sales of more than $2.5 million. In Section 

5414 5.4, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 

5415 

5416 Step 8. We calculate the PV of per-entity costs before taking the difference between the baseline 

5417 and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to 

5418 indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is 

5419 constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according 

5420 to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, 

5421 on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also 

5422 employ an average of 0.41 handlers, based on the assumption that large-small farms employ one 

5423 and other small farms employ none. 

5424 

5425 Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations 

5426 and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories. 

5427 

௘ܥܫܧ൫ܸܲ

௑൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܥܧோ,௘௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܥܧோ,௘஻൯

ோ

5428 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

149 

5429 Table 5.2-11 presents the annualized per-entity costs associated with the training requirements 

5430 for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers. 

5431 California is the only region that varies significantly from the other regions. The incremental 

5432 cost per establishment, assuming immediate implementation, is shown in the final column. If all 

5433 requirements were delayed two years, the annualized incremental costs would be about $200 per 

5434 year for large farms and $55 for small farms. The annualized cost to CHPEs would be around 

5435 $84. 

5436 

5437 Table 5.2-11. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5438 (TRAIN only) 

Farm size/Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo 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 

5439 Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate. 

5440 

5441 5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components 

5442 

5443 The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve 

5444 information exchange (hazard communication and notification) to employees and between WPS 

5445 farms and CPHEs. Proposed hazard communication requirements include making application 

5446 information available (HAZCOM-01), augmenting the application information with copies of the 

5447 label and SDS (HAZCOM-02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years 

5448 (HAZCOM-05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY-01, Post field warning signs 

5449 if the REI is greater than 48 hours, NOTIFY-03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if 

5450 the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY-06, Revise the content on warning signs (phased-in over 

5451 two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs), and NOTIFY-08, specify that 

5452 warning signs must be posted if the treated field is within 100 feet of worker housing. For 

5453 workers entering fields during the REI, revisions include NOTIFY-10, Provide additional 

5454 information about the pesticide orally, and NOTIFY-12, Keep records of information provided 

5455 for two years. EPA is proposing to revise the content of safety posters, NOTIFY-14, which will 

5456 be phased in over two years. EPA is also proposing to require additional safety posters: 

5457 NOTIFY-15, additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY-16, at 

5458 handler decontamination locations. Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to 

5459 when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer with information about a pesticide 

5460 application, NOTIFY-18. 

5461 

5462 These two components can be addressed separately because there are no overlapping 

5463 requirements between the two or between the training requirements. Overlap only occurs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

150 

5464 between elements within the components, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters 

5465 adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements. 

5466 

5467 We present the results of the estimation. Details showing the calculations are available in 

5468 Appendix B. 

5469 

5470 Hazard Communication 

5471 

5472 Table 5.2-12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and 

5473 regional baselines for hazard communication requirements. All requirements are imposed 

5474 immediately. The proposed revisions are expected to cost about $8.0 million per year, 

5475 accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requirement (HAZCOM-01). 

5476 On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley are expected to bear the majority 

5477 of these costs, in part because of the large number of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also 

5478 somewhat lower in many other regions because representative states already impose some of the 

5479 requirements or require that SDS be available from pesticide distributors, which will facilitate 

5480 compliance. Texas already meets the proposed requirements so farms there, and in states with 

5481 similar regulations, may see a reduction in costs due the elimination of the central posting 

5482 requirement. 

5483 

5484 Table 5.2-12. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. 

5485 (HAZCOM only) 

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC 

($1,000)

South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885 

California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120 

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405 

Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84 

Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726 

Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303 

Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922 

Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083 -1,577 -180 

Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734 

National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998 

5486 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5487 

5488 Table 5.2-13 presents the per-entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. 

5489 Several states have requirements that are similar to the proposals and the impacts will be small, 

5490 ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 per year in Florida and Iowa. Other regions may 

5491 face higher incremental costs to obtain the required information. EPA does not anticipate a 

5492 distinct difference in costs between large and small farms. The cost of complying with the 

5493 hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products 

5494 used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less 

5495 likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for 

5496 small than for large farms. 

5497 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

151 

5498 Table 5.2-13. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5499 (HAZCOM only) 

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5 

All Other Regions 108 69 38 

SMALL WPS FARMS 

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4 

All Other Regions 90 58 32 

5500 Source: EPA estimates. 

5501 

5502 Notification 

5503 

5504 The regional, incremental, and annualized costs of the proposed notification requirements are 

5505 shown in Table 5.2-14. The estimated annual costs of $15.1 million are somewhat overestimated 

5506 since some requirements will be phased in over a two-year period. EPA also estimated costs if 

5507 all requirements were phased in, which would somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11.7 

5508 million per year. The simple sum of the proposed costs is $14.6 million per year. 

5509 

5510 Table 5.2-14. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY 

5511 only) 

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC 

($1,000)

South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330 

California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641 

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477 

Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316 

Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508 

Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508 

Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695 

Texas/Mountain 

West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970 

Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632 

National 468,466 336,006 132,460 15,076 

5512 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5513 

5514 The final two columns of Table 3.5-14 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the 

5515 difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs. The regional incremental 

5516 costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region. 

5517 

5518 Results of the per-entity analysis are shown in Table 5.2-15. Large WPS farms are relatively less 

5519 impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

152 

5520 save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by posting because it is more efficient than orally 

5521 informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased 

5522 posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be 

5523 overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on temporary workers who will not be 

5524 on farm when some applications are made or during the REI and thus will have relatively fewer 

5525 posting events over time. 

5526 

5527 Table 5.2-15. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5528 (NOTIFY only) 

Farm size ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 254 18 

SMALL WPS FARMS 120 78 42 

5529 Source: EPA estimates. 

5530 

5531 Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirements 

5532 because revisions codify existing interpretations of applicable requirements. 

5533 

5534 5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE 

5535 

5536 The proposed rule includes several categories of regulations that are intended to better protect 

5537 workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE-01, Minimum age of 16 for workers entering 

5538 fields during the REI, and AGE-03, Minimum age of 16 for handlers. The proposed entry 

5539 requirements consist of ENTRY-01, Expand the restricted area during application; ENTRY-02, 

5540 Limit worker time in fields during the REI; ENTRY-03, Halt applications if workers enter the 

5541 restricted area; and ENTRY-05, Codify exception to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing 

5542 PPE-01, Require respirator fit test; PPE-02, Eliminate exemptions for WPS employees acting as 

5543 CCAs; PPE-03, Eliminate exemptions for employees of CCAs; PPE-04, Revising standards for 

5544 closed mixing and loading systems, PPE-05, Simplifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and 

5545 PPE-06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE. 

5546 

5547 None of the requirements within these categories overlap with any other proposed category of 

5548 regulation. 

5549 

5550 Age 

5551 

5552 The two proposed age requirements do not interact with any other regulations. In this case, the 

5553 regulatory costs can simply be summed. Table 5.2-16 presents the NPV for the baseline and 

5554 proposed costs. As explained in Section 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor 

5555 costs, not compliance costs. 

5556 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

153 

5557 Table 5.2-16. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only) 

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC 

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 7,568 6,788 780 89 

California 4,447 3,948 498 57 

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20 

Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12 

Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122 

Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68 

Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133 

Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70 

Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51 

National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622 

5558 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5559 

5560 The annual cost of the age restrictions on handlers and on workers involved in early entry events 

5561 is estimated to be $620,000. Annual per-entity costs are provided in Table 5.2-17. CPHEs are 

5562 not expected to be impacted because few commercial establishments would employ adolescents 

5563 under 16 years of age to handle pesticides. 

5564 

5565 Table 5.2-17. Annual Per-Entity Baseline and Proposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. 

5566 (AGE only) 

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30 

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1.05 

CPHE 470 470 0 

5567 Source: EPA estimates. 

5568 

5569 

5570 

5571 Entry 

5572 

5573 The proposed entry restrictions are largely definitional. As explained in Section 3.3.6, there are 

5574 no measureable costs to the individual regulations. The total cost of the entry component is, 

5575 therefore, also near zero. 

5576 

5577 PPE 

5578 

5579 There could be some overlap between reporting requirements in the PPE category, but the effect 

5580 on costs is minimal. Table 5.2-18 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten-year time 

5581 horizon, at the regional and national levels. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to 

5582 cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million. 

5583 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

154 

5584 Table 5.2-18. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 

Region 

RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC 

($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563 

California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223 

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593 

Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427 

Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377 

Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024 

Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063 

Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127 

Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251 

National 352,013 196,955 155,058 17,648 

5585 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5586 

5587 Table 5.2-19 presents the per-entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms 

5588 represents the average cost over all small farms, including the medium- and small-small WPS 

5589 farms that would generally not employ handlers. California’s requirements are similar to those 

5590 proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially 

5591 lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primarily to upgrade closed mixing 

5592 and loading systems, with self-employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental 

5593 cost than enterprises with multiple employees. 

5594 

5595 Table 5.2-19. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS 

California 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 

5596 Source: EPA estimates. 

5597 

5598 5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

155 

5599 

5600 Certain provisions of the WPS are intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that 

5601 occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a 

5602 recently treated field: SUPPLY-01, Water requirements for routine decontamination, and 

5603 SUPPLY-02, Water requirements for decontamination during early entry (i.e., if the REI is still 

5604 in effect). The proposal also includes two requirements for handlers: SUPPLY-03, Water 

5605 requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-05, Water flow requirement for 

5606 eyeflushing. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency assistance to be 30 minutes 

5607 for worker emergencies, EMERG-01, and handler emergencies, EMERG-03. 

5608 

5609 There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of 

5610 these categories is the simple sum of the individual items. 

5611 

5612 Supply 

5613 

5614 The revisions to the requirements for supplies for routine and emergency decontamination 

5615 largely codify existing guidance. However, one provision, SUPPLY-02, will increase the 

5616 amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers when entering a field under 

5617 a REI. EPA estimates the costs to be about $2,500 annually, as shown in Table 5.2-20. 

5618 

5619 Table 5.2-20. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only) 

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC 

($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3 

California 164 160 3.8 0.4 

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1 

Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1 

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3 

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3 

Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4 

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2 

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4 

National 4,795 4,773 22 2.5 

5620 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5621 

5622 The per-entity costs of these requirements are negligible. Table 5.2-21 presents the estimated 

5623 baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of employees. 

5624 The per-handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen by the 

5625 estimated incremental cost to a CPHE, because running water is typically available at mixing and 

5626 loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted. 

5627 

5628 Table 5.2-21. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY 

5629 only) 

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo 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 

5630 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due 

5631 to rounding. 

5632 

5633 Emergency Assistance 

5634 

5635 The new regulations dealing with emergency assistance are all definitional in nature and EPA 

5636 does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8. 

5637 

5638 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule 

5639 

5640 Having accounted for the overlap between the individual components of the proposed rule, the 

5641 total cost can be estimated by summing the costs of the eight components. Table 5.2-22 presents 

5642 the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs, assuming all elements are implemented 

5643 immediately. Nationally, the proposed rule is estimated to increase the cost of complying with 

5644 the worker protection standard by $636 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three 

5645 percent discount rate and assuming all requirements are implemented immediately. The annual 

5646 incremental cost under this assumption is estimated to be about $72.4 million. If implementation 

5647 of all the training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years, the 10 year cost is 

5648 estimated to be $544 million and the annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $61.9 

5649 million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed 

5650 regulations is estimated to be between $60.1 and $73.1 million. 

5651 

5652 Table 5.2-22. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total) 

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC 

($1,000)

South 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 

5653 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 

5654 

5655 Figure 5.2-1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of the proposed rule to the total 

5656 incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e., the training, hazard communication, and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

157 

5657 notification requirements, make up almost three-fourths of the total incremental costs. The 

5658 protective regulations (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of 

5659 the remaining cost, with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total 

5660 incremental cost. The requirements focused on mitigation are largely definitional in nature and 

5661 contribute less than one percent of the cost.

5662 

5663 Figure 5.2-1. Contribution of components of the proposed Worker Protection Standard to 

5664 total annualized incremental cost, $72.4 million. 

5665 

5666 

5667 

5668 Average per-entity costs are presented in Table 5.2-23. As explained above, these costs are 

5669 calculated by taking the per-farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per-worker and handler 

5670 costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the type and size of the 

5671 operation. Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations, but often only 

5672 slightly. We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per-entity costs 

5673 are below the national average, and the regions where per-entity cost is highest. The cost 

5674 estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediately and that the WPS farms 

5675 make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horizon, which overstates the 

5676 expected cost of the proposal. Incremental costs for large farms are expected to average less 

5677 than $400 per year, ranging from an additional $200 per year in California to about $430 per year 

5678 in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley. Small farms are likely to face impacts 

5679 of under $150 per year, on average, ranging from $90 per year in California to $170 per year in 

5680 the Ohio Valley. If implementation of all training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 

5681 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $345 for large farms and $130 for small 

5682 farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 

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 

5684 Table 5.2-23. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. 

5685 (Total) 

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo 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 

5686 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations 

5687 subject to rounding. 

5688 

5689 The incremental cost to CPHEs with multiple handlers is estimated to be between $170 and $190 

5690 per year. The incremental cost for self-employed commercial handlers is low because they will 

5691 already meet the increased training requirements through the applicators certification process. 

5692 

5693 Table 5.2-23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in 

5694 various regions, given those regions current regulations. Table 5.2-24 presents the costs to the 

5695 average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the 

5696 results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is 

5697 suggested by Table 5.2-23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like 

5698 Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest. 

5699 

5700 Table 5.2-24. Average Worker Per-Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) 

Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm 

 workers/farm EICo i workers/farm EICo i

South 15.8 385 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 

5701 Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding. 

5702 

5703 A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is 

5704 the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 

5705 17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the 

5706 average cost to be between $26.50 and $31.00 per year per employee, including handlers 

5707 employed at CPHEs. 

5708 

5709 All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many 

5710 current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of 

5711 assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 

5712 regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline 

5713 and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While 

5714 assumptions attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has 

5715 tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 

5716 would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 

5717 unknown. 

5718 

5719 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment 

5720 

5721 EPA also calculates the per-employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal 

5722 incremental cost per WPS farm worker (not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is 

5723 estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on 

5724 employment decisions. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training 

5725 requirements, which are expected to cost about $5.50 per year. This is offset by a reduction in 

5726 the per-worker cost of the notification requirements of $1.20 per year as greater emphasis is 

5727 placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0.10 per 

5728 year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0.01 per 

5729 year. Table 5.3-1 presents this information. 

5730 

5731 Table 5.3-1. Annualized Per-Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements 

Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler 

Training 5.48 15.11 15.03 

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Notification -1.15 0.00 0.00 

Age 0.07 1.88 0.00 

Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00 

Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 4.41 59.26 15.03 

5732 Source: EPA estimates. 

5733 

5734 The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but is still relatively 

5735 minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $15.10 per year to employment costs, but 

5736 the main driver is the PPE category at $42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

160 

5737 requirement for fit testing respirators. The age restriction may add about $2.00 per year to 

5738 employment costs by restricting farms from using lower-wage adolescents to mix, load, and 

5739 apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $60 per 

5740 year, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a 

5741 handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight hours per day and assuming 

5742 only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost 

5743 of $60 per year represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not 

5744 be expected to have an impact on jobs. 

5745 

5746 The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $15 per year, all of which is a 

5747 result of increased training. 

5748 

5749 5.4 Small Business Impacts 

5750 

5751 This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on 

5752 small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and revenue for small 

5753 WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 

5754 have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions. 

5755 

5756 Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 5.4.1, 

5757 and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 

5758 September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received 

5759 from the panel that influenced the proposed requirements. For example, the requirement for a 

5760 sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and loading sites was suggested by the panel as an 

5761 alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Based on the current analysis, EPA 

5762 concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

5763 

5764 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

5765 Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of 

5766 regulations on small entities, including businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. 

5767 When significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, 

5768 agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 

5769 effects on significantly impacted small entities. 

5770 

5771 The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 

5772 economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 

5773 incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less 

5774 than one percent of annual sales as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 

5775 sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 

5776 considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 

5777 a substantial number of firms will be impacted. 

5778 

5779 Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we use the following 

5780 thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial”: 

5781  Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

5782 30% of all small farms; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

161 

5783  Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents 

5784 less than 20% of all small farms; or 

5785  More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 

5786 10% of all small farms. 

5787 If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 

5788 substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows: 

5789  Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

5790 20% of all small farms; 

5791  Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 

5792 farms; or 

5793  More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 

5794 of all small farms. 

5795 

5796 Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 

5797 incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 

5798 develop cost-to-sales ratios. 

5799 

5800 In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. 

5801 We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 

5802 estimates that small CPHEs will not face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The 

5803 estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $200 per year, is only 0.10 percent of the 

5804 average annual revenue for small CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010). 

5805 

5806 In Section 5.4.2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and 

5807 estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 

5808 estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the proposal as well as a two-year 

5809 delayed implementation of the training and notification requirements. 

5810 

5811 5.4.1 Industry Profile 

5812 

5813 EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) to identify the number of 

5814 small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is 

5815 conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who 

5816 operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, operator characteristics, 

5817 production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas. 

5818 

5819 EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 

5820 for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 

5821 greenhouses, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size 

5822 classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined 

5823 as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 

5824 million in annual sales. Table 5.4-1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of 

5825 the total that are small farms. 

5826 

5827 Table 5.4-1. Crop-producing farms, by type and size, and average number of employees. 

Farm Type Number of Small Farms1

 Average Number of Employees
*** 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 

5828 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). 

1 5829 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue. 

2 5830 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 

5831 

5832 The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 

5833 and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 

5834 If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 

5835 jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor 

5836 remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 

5837 the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e., 

5838 those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 

5839 define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms 

5840 as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with 

5841 annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4-2 presents the number of farms, annual 

5842 value of crops sold, and number of workers, by type and size. These categories of farms provide 

5843 the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small farms. 

5844 

5845 Table 5.4-2. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size. 

Type All Small 1 Large-Small 1

 Medium-Small 1 Small-Small 1

Farms Producing Crops 

 number 1,496,722 264,197 477,699 754,826 

 sales $ 66,277 $ 300,043 $ 36,680 $ 3,188 

 workers 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3 

Farms Using Pesticides 

 number 730,387 221,735 290,611 218,041 

 sales $ 109,865 $ 304,107 $ 41,208 $ 3,839 

 workers 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.5 

WPS Farms 2

 number 340,369 139,237 121,223 79,909 

 sales $ 152,986 $ 334,448 $ 42,733 $ 4,055 

 workers 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.5 

WPS Farms 2 Using Pesticides 

 number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880 

 sales $181,742 $337,326 $45,587 $4,445 

 workers 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.7 

5846 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b). 

1 5847 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 

5848 subgroups: large-small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

163 

5849 year; medium-small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small5850 small farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 

5851 those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small 

5852 feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium-small feedlots, with 

5853 annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small-small feedlots, with annual sales less than 

5854 $50,000 per year. 

5855 2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 

5856 WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticide application is made within a specified time 

5857 and distance from where employees are working. 

5858 

5859 It is worth noting that small-small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less than $10,000 in 

5860 annual sales, also employ an average of nearly three laborers. It is somewhat difficult to 

5861 reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very 

5862 temporary and are associated with a few tasks such as harvest that demand relatively high labor 

5863 input over a short period of time. Non-farm income is also important for these enterprises. 

5864 USDA reports that off-farm income for all vegetable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per 

5865 year in 2005-2007, accounting for 55 percent of household income (Ali and Lucier, 2011). For 

5866 smaller vegetable farms, defined by USDA as those with average farm sales between $40,000 

5867 and $249,000 per year, off-farm income accounts for 94 percent of household income. In 

5868 general, the portion of income generated off-farm is higher for other types of farming (Ali and 

5869 Lucier, 2011). Thus, employees may also be engaged in other activities as well as in agriculture 

5870 or instead of in agriculture. 

5871 

5872 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost 

5873 

5874 EPA estimates the incremental cost for the various WPS farm sizes according to the 

5875 methodology described in Section 5.1. Per-entity unit cost is added to the per-worker cost times 

5876 the number of workers. Large-small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler, on average, 

5877 while medium-small and small-small WPS farms are assumed to rely on commercial applicators 

5878 or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications. 

5879 

5880 Table 5.4-3 presents the number of WPS farms, average sales, and annual incremental cost of the 

5881 rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual incremental costs are based on existing requirements 

5882 in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 5.2.5, the incremental 

5883 cost for a small WPS farm in California is substantially less than the national average due to the 

5884 regulatory baseline even accounting for the relatively higher number of workers per farm. States 

5885 in Texas and the Mountain West region are also expected to have incremental costs per entity 

5886 less than the national average. 

5887 

5888 EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue. Over all types of small 

5889 farms, the impact of the rule is 0.1 percent of sales, which is not considered significant. Only the 

5890 very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4,500 per year, may face impacts above one 

5891 percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one percent of sales 

5892 could be over 40,000, given the number of small-small establishments. However, this is likely 

5893 an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as it does not account for the nearly 5,000 

5894 small-small farms in California that would face impacts well below the national average. 

5895 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

164 

5896 Table 5.4-3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms making pesticide applications 

All Small WPS 

Farms making 

pesticide 

applications 

Large-Small 

WPS Farms 

making 

pesticide 

applications 

Medium-Small 

WPS Farms 

making 

pesticide 

applications 

Small-Small 

WPS Farms 

making 

pesticide 

applications 

Number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880 

Average Sales $181,742 $337,326 $ 45,587 $ 4,445 

Immediate Implementation 

Incremental Cost $ 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% 

5897 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations. 

1 5898 Training and Notification only. 

5899 

5900 It is also standard practice, when evaluating impacts per firm, to consider the revenues of the 

5901 parent company, which may be involved in other activities than the one being regulated. In that 

5902 context, it is worth noting that farm income represents only a portion of total household income 

5903 for small operations. As noted in the preceding section, USDA reports that off-farm income 

5904 accounts for 94 percent of income for farms making between $40,000 and $249,000 per year in 

5905 farm sales and that off-farm income for vegetable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per 

5906 year (Ali and Lucier, 2011). Thus, comparison of the rule costs to farm income alone will 

5907 typically, and perhaps substantially, overstate the impacts on the smallest entities. If, on average, 

5908 farm income represents even 25 percent of household income, the smallest WPS farms total 

5909 income is estimated to be about $17,800 per year. This implies off-farm income of about 

5910 $13,300, well below that reported by USDA (Ali and Lucier, 2011). An incremental increase in 

5911 costs of $81 per year as a consequence of the proposed rule, and assuming 20 pesticide 

5912 applications each year over the 10-year period of analysis, represents about 0.5 percent of annual 

5913 income and would not be considered significant. 

5914 

5915 EPA also examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small-small farms in order 

5916 to gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 

5917 sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether 

5918 WPS training requirements will apply to small-small farms every year of a ten-year time period, 

5919 which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4-3. Less than 55 percent 

5920 of small-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire 

5921 workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety 

5922 training if an application has been made. Under this scenario, the incremental cost to small5923 small WPS farms would average under $60 per year. 

5924 

5925 A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small-small farms 

5926 employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary 

5927 basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 

5928 made well before workers are hired. For small-small farms, the hazard communication and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

165 

5929 notification requirements comprise a large share of the cost at $40 per year, based on 20 

5930 pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. It is likely that small-small 

5931 farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus 

5932 have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small-small farms make only five 

5933 applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required (e.g., in the 

5934 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is 

5935 also less than $60 per year. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been 

5936 made and only five applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, 

5937 the incremental cost of the rule for small-small farms averages only $35 per year. 

5938 

5939 Given that, for small-small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard 

5940 communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated and that total household income 

5941 is substantially underestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the 

5942 proposed rule would not have a significant impact. 

5943 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

166 

5944 Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule 

5945 

5946 Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health effects to workers and 

5947 handlers as well as health problems that occur later; if the proposed rule changes are 

5948 implemented, agricultural workers and pesticide handlers will have better information and 

5949 protections that will enable them to reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to 

5950 improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will 

5951 provide a range of benefits to agricultural farm workers and handlers. The proposed rule 

5952 changes would ensure that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect 

5953 themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 

5954 

5955 By proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to 

5956 substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects 

5957 (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 

5958 requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 

5959  Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides –The 

5960 proposed rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as 

5961 proposing changes to ensure that the training is more effective. 

5962  Reducing exposure to pesticides – Among other things, the proposed rule changes and 

5963 clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 

5964 pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 

5965 directly reduce exposure to the agricultural workforce. 

5966  Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, 

5967 and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to 

5968 respond to exposures. 

5969 

5970 The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural 

5971 workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals 

5972 considered by the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed rule describes in 

5973 detail the proposed requirements, and how they are expected to better inform workers about the 

5974 risks and causes of pesticide exposure, protect them against exposure, and mitigate the effects of 

5975 exposure. This chapter discusses how these three approaches can reduce the health effects of 

5976 exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The 

5977 proposed changes include proposals for improved training requirements, in terms of the 

5978 frequency of training agricultural workers receive, and the content of that training. Other 

5979 proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in 

5980 combination with training to improve farmworkers’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect 

5981 themselves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. 

5982 Within agriculture, Barnett et al. (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased 

5983 the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of pesticides, and a greater understanding 

5984 of how to protect children from take home exposure. Both Strong et al. (2008) and Salvatore et 

5985 al. (2009) report better self-protection practices after safety training for Hispanic farmworkers. 

5986 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

167 

5987 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified 

5988 

5989 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers 

5990 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

5991 families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This 

5992 section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced 

5993 acute exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot. 

5994 

5995 Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by: 

5996  avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 

5997 workers and handlers. 

5998  mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a 

5999 better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers. 

6000  avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents (e.g., 

6001 developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers. 

6002  reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers, handlers and their families. 

6003 

6004 Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 

6005 have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 

6006 the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 

6007 as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 

6008 adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 

6009 appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 

6010 the benefit estimates in this chapter. 

6011 

6012 Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designed to clarify emergency response procedures and 

6013 or the amount of decontamination supplies available. These provisions can reduce the severity 

6014 of the accidental poisoning events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. 

6015 Because our estimates are based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are 

6016 underestimated. There is not enough available information to determine how much severity 

6017 would be reduced in a given incident. 

6018 

6019 The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 

6020 are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain 

6021 causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is 

6022 impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 

6023 health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers 

6024 will be discussed in a semi-quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 

6025 described, but cannot be quantified. 

6026 

6027 The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of 

6028 the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 

6029 families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

6030 benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 

6031 from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 

6032 surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be reduced 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

168 

6033 by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break-even analysis that shows 

6034 some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 

6035 

6036 6.2. Who is at Risk? 

6037 

6038 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 

6039 

6040 Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 

6041 large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 

6042 approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Table 3.3-4) that are hired by agricultural 

6043 establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from 

6044 pesticide exposure (NASS, 2008b). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides 

6045 directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides either through contact with 

6046 residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected 

6047 application. EPA assumes there are nearly 250,000 pesticide handlers, included in the farm 

6048 worker population, that handle pesticides directly; another 72,000 handlers are employed at 

6049 commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010, See Section 3.3.2). The 

6050 agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues 

6051 and that exposure can pose significant long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify 

6052 a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because 

6053 workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different 

6054 toxicities and risks and are exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of 

6055 frequencies. There is, however, strong overall evidence that such risks can occur and that they 

6056 can be substantially reduced; the provisions in the proposed rule will help reduce these risks by 

6057 reducing exposure. 

6058 

6059 6.2.2. Children and families 

6060 

6061 Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 

6062 for children. These include training components designed to minimize exposure to family 

6063 members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and 

6064 handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits for certain 

6065 worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are 

6066 particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn 

6067 children are particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different 

6068 exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects 

6069 into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems 

6070 are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et 

6071 al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are 

6072 exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide 

6073 exposure. 

6074 

6075 Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for 

6076 chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

6077 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

169 

6078 lesser health impacts. Also, at various development stages, children metabolize differently, 

6079 allowing for chemical exposures to have more or less effect. The proposed changes to the WPS 

6080 also include restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes 

6081 are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, 

6082 which is also discussed below. 

6083 

6084 Take Home Exposure 

6085 

6086 Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 

6087 exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al., (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 

6088 urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 

6089 sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary 

6090 sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 

6091 Bradman et al. (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 

6092 pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, 

6093 and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 

6094 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

6095 significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 

6096 farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 

6097 levels in the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 

6098 transported home on farmers clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 

6099 pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure 

6100 pathway, Vida et al. (2007), reported results that indicate that take home exposure is an 

6101 important source of exposure for children. The studies cited above consistently found higher 

6102 levels of pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and 

6103 that levels of Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest 

6104 levels of azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a 

6105 farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, Coronado et al., 2006). Curl et 

6106 al., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which 

6107 suggest the take home pathway is the source for the residues. Exposure studies on 

6108 organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home 

6109 pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; 

6110 Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007). 

6111 

6112 Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure 

6113 to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al., 2009 conducted 

6114 interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several 

6115 misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 

6116 through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less 

6117 harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to 

6118 work quickly, and farmworkers were unwilling to wash their hand and bodies immediately after 

6119 work. Quandt et al. (1998) found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for 

6120 their intended target, and that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in 

6121 Rao et al., 2007). Other exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray 

6122 drift from nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

170 

6123 working. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may be particularly important for long-term 

6124 development. 

6125 

6126 Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 

6127 

6128 Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 

6129 proposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is evidence that adolescents and children 

6130 do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 

6131 to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 

6132 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 

6133 context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 

6134 risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 

6135 risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during 

6136 worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998). As reported in Reed et al. (2006), “young 

6137 agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their 

6138 nonagricultural counterparts.” This statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and 

6139 suggests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older 

6140 workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and 

6141 Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and 

6142 symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al., 2006). When teens were asked 

6143 whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

6144 respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

6145 was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 

6146 teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 

6147 attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 

6148 leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al., 2006). 

6149 

6150 The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 

6151 risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 

6152 these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 

6153 risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010). In an international 

6154 setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 

6155 neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 

6156 applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 

6157 in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 

6158 levels. 

6159 

6160 Salazar et al. (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 

6161 teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 

6162 among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 

6163 be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they 

6164 washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did 

6165 not have the time and/or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 

6166 participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they 

6167 appeared to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 

6168 was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

171 

6169 machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 

6170 al., 2004). 

6171 

6172 According to Calvert et al.(2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 

6173 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 

6174 to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The 

6175 literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 

6176 Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 

6177 decisions. It is not certain why risky behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a 

6178 consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 

6179 and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, 

6180 but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). The 

6181 cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 

6182 indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking 

6183 process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that 

6184 more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, will not 

6185 protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do 

6186 not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the 

6187 establishment of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered 

6188 by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety. 

6189 

6190 6.3.What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families 

6191 

6192 This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 

6193 exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families, 

6194 including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of 

6195 these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of 

6196 developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic 

6197 occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section 

6198 6.8. 

6199 

6200 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects 

6201 

6202 The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 

6203 narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others have effects across a broad 

6204 spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, to 

6205 multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al., 2010). Exposures to some 

6206 pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from 

6207 overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects. 

6208 Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. Exposure to 

6209 organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, 

6210 nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). Severe 

6211 acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart 

6212 and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are 

6213 just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by pesticide exposure; the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

172 

6214 Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different 

6215 symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure (Reigart 

6216 and Roberts, 1999). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers and 

6217 handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 

6218 several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 

6219 

6220 Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related 

6221 illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and 

6222 handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 

6223 reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 

6224 Calvert, et al. (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture 

6225 industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning 

6226 incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 

6227 varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order 

6228 of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the 

6229 sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers 

6230 for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et 

6231 al. found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California 

6232 surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the 

6233 poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 

6234 were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 

6235 and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye 

6236 contact. 

6237 

6238 Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 

6239 high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 

6240 period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

6241 one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

6242 is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

6243 can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

6244 of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 

6245 least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. 

6246 Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 

6247 and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases4 6248 . 

6249 The impact on the financial situation of a low-income farmworker can be dramatic. 

6250 

6251 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 

6252 

6253 This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These 

6254 are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm families; 

6255 many others, including some cancers also have an association with pesticide exposure. The 

6256 discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 6.6, because 

 

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 

6257 most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based 

6258 on occupational exposure. 

6259 

6260 Reproductive Risks 

6261 

6262 Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 

6263 reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al. (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship 

6264 between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. 

6265 A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al., 2007 

Outcome Examined 

Number of 

Papers Found 

Number of Papers Found that 

Display an Association Between 

the Outcome Examined and 

Pesticide Exposure* 

Birth Defect 15 14 (+) 

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) 

Fertility** 14 7 (-) 

Altered Growth 10 7 (+) 

Fetal Death 11 9 (+) 

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+) 

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses. 

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and 

infertility. 

6266 

6267 As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 

6268 between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 

6269 defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 

6270 nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 

6271 studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes 

6272 “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 

6273 preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception 

6274 exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al., 2007). For most 

6275 effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

6276 exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 

6277 the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 

6278 publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 

6279 suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 

6280 

6281 Potential Health Effects in Children 

6282 

6283 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 

6284 pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important 

6285 effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) studies 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

174 

6286 have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 

6287 leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 

6288 of developmental toxicity (i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 

6289 and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 

6290 pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 

6291 Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain 

6292 tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 

6293 often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 

6294 occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 

6295 application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field. 

6296 

6297 Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

6298 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 

6299 the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than younger 

6300 children, there are important development processes continue until adulthood. In particular 

6301 brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic 

6302 pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 

6303 connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases 

6304 the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 

6305 during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 

6306 particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). In addition, occupational exposure beginning in adolescence 

6307 gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves 

6308 over a full lifetime. 

6309 

6310 Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 

6311 development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 

6312 are looking at pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 

6313 outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and 

6314 neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 

6315 

6316  The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 

6317 Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 

6318 blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 

6319 outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 

6320 pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 

6321 comparisons between pre- and post-cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 

6322  Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, 

6323 African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary metabolites (TCP 

6324 and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The enrollment of the 

6325 Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos. 

6326 However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase-out of residential 

6327 uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications. 

6328  The CHAMACOS cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in 

6329 the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This 

6330 cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multiple pathways such as occupational 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

175 

6331 exposures and take-home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary 

6332 metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 

6333 

6334 The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is the cohort associated with the Center for Health 

6335 Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, 

6336 being studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily 

6337 Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from 

6338 this cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during 

6339 pregnancy on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi 

6340 et al., 1999; Bradman et al., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and theirchildren 

6341 (Bradman et al., 2005; Eskenazi et al., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2004; Young and 

6342 Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2007). These studies have 

6343 investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on fetal growth 

6344 and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child 

6345 organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et 

6346 al., 2007). 

6347 

6348 The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic 

6349 organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 

6350 well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 

6351 (TCP), and parathion (4-nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 

6352 commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 

6353 (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007). 

6354 

6355 The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed 

6356 to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 

6357 with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al., 2007), abnormal 

6358 reflexes (Young et al., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al., 2004). 

6359 

6360 Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. 

6361 Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the 

6362 pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 

6363 exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 

6364 cohorts report delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to OP 

6365 pesticides (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, Engel et al., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 

6366 Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 

6367 in children (Engel et al., 2007, Young et al., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were 

6368 reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 

6369 2006, Lovasi, et al., 2011, Engel et al., 2011). 

6370 

6371 Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and 

6372 the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 

6373 hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 

6374 that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 

6375 associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al., 2010). Similar 

6376 associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

176 

6377 chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 

6378 pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al., 2006, Levasi, et al., 

6379 2011, Engel et al., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al. (2010), 

6380 found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 

6381 children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median 

6382 had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 

6383 

6384 The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 

6385 epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 

6386 However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 

6387 between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 

6388 that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and 

6389 neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures. 

6390 

6391 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 

6392 

6393 In the next section, a quantified estimate of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 

6394 these quantified estimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide 

6395 exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 

6396 sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. 

6397 The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for 

6398 which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits. 

6399 

6400 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section, 

6401 when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported. 

6402 Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 

6403 result from the WPS, and dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of 

6404 reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is impossible to 

6405 quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to 

6406 families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, 

6407 and it is impossible to quantify the benefits from the proposed WPS rule changes that may 

6408 reduce these effects. 

6409 

6410 The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non-quantifiable 

6411 benefits from chronic exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on 

6412 the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 6.6. 

6413 

6414 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 

6415 

6416 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by further protecting workers 

6417 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

6418 families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $11.3 

6419 million annually, although important non-quantifiable benefits are discussed later in the chapter. 

6420 This section quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 

6421 handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

177 

6422 

6423 6.5.1. Methodology and Data 

6424 

6425 We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 

6426 avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 

6427 that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of 

6428 pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines 

6429 whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of 

6430 pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of 

6431 reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 

6432 6.5.2, underreporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated 

6433 benefits. This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of underreporting was known. 

6434 A discussion of underreporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of 

6435 Section 6.5. 

6436 

6437 The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 

6438 The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 

6439 underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 

6440 valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). 

6441 

6442 For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use two complementary databases: 

6443 one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures that led to the incident report but lacks national 

6444 representation (NIOSH’ Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, 

6445 SENSOR), and one that is nationally representative, but lacks the necessary exposure detail 

6446 (American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System, NPDS). Data 

6447 for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 

6448 Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

6449 and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to 

6450 pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three-year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time 

6451 nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and 

6452 Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 

6453 2004. SENSOR reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide 

6454 involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to 

6455 estimate the proportion of incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule. 

6456 

6457 Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the 

6458 National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate the annual number of pesticide incidents in the 

6459 United States. NPDS is a comprehensive surveillance system developed in 1983 and maintained 

6460 by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) to track acute illness and 

6461 injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system with 

6462 geographically specific and near real-time reporting. The system contains detailed toxicological 

6463 information on poison exposures reported to poison centers around the country, capturing an 

6464 estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the United States. 

6465 The NPDS data does not have sufficient information to determine whether a reported incident 

6466 could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distribution of effects, including 

6467 death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more detail in Section 6.5.4. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

178 

6468 

6469 The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 

6470 Information on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 

6471 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 

6472 related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and 

6473 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring 

6474 together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 

6475 organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patient6476 level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 

6477 the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 

6478 costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 

6479 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 

6480 services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals. 

6481 

6482 Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 

6483 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4. 

6484 

6485 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents 

6486 

6487 There is concern that pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 

6488 particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before an occupational pesticide6489 related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 

6490 treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 

6491 the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report 

6492 the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 

6493 related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 

6494 tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al., 2001). 

6495 

6496 (1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

6497 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

6498 uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

6499 rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

6500 common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 

6501 dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 

6502 problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 

6503 exposure to poison ivy. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 

6504 pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and 

6505 may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 

6506 

6507 (2) Workers and handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, 

6508 many pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 

6509 intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, 

6510 causes some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this 

6511 inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of 

6512 exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will 

6513 gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

179 

6514 agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 

6515 California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance system showed that in 

6516 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 

6517 (Das et al., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 

6518 

6519 Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handlers’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 

6520 migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 

6521 20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 

6522 reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). 

6523 

6524 The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low-income persons. 

6525 Although low-income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or 

6526 have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs: 

6527  Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant 

6528 barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non6529 disabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 

6530 immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 

6531 five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 

6532 some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 

6533 difficult for low-income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 

6534 employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 

6535  Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 

6536 Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty 

6537 completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, 

6538 it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive 

6539 verification requirements, particularly if there is limited availability of language 

6540 assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 

6541 Shin, 2005). 

6542 

6543 A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeking medical care for 

6544 agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 

6545 retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 

6546 State Department of Health, 2003). 

6547 

6548 Many agricultural workers average 6-day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 

6549 sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 

6550 miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 

6551 medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their 

6552 medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it 

6553 were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm 

6554 (Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 

6555 

6556 (3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 

6557 treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illness or 

6558 injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 

6559 such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

180 

6560 drawn. Like their patients, physicians and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in 

6561 ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 

6562 those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 

6563 poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide 

6564 poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a 

6565 pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide 

6566 exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming 

6567 the causes. 

6568 

6569 (4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 

6570 recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under6571 reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

6572 Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

6573 compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

6574 difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington, 1991) 

6575 

6576 Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

6577 requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

6578 bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 

6579 completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al., 2002, Baker et al., 1998). For 

6580 example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 

6581 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 

6582 becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 

6583 an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 

6584 statement" (Arizona, 1990). 

6585 

6586 If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 

6587 not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 

6588 literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 

6589 although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 

6590 to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 

6591 symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur 

6592 many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 

6593 symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is 

6594 common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 

6595 underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5-1. 

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 Poison 

Information Center (ChafeeBahamon et al., 1983)

Observing usage patterns of a 

poison information center by 

hospital staff over a two-year 

period

“Sufficiently Large”b

1987

Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison 

Control Centers in the United 

States (Veltri et al., 1987)

Identifying the strengths and 

weaknesses of the American 

Association of Poison Control 

Centers National Data 

Collection System

67%

2008

Hidden Tragedy: 

Underreporting of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses (US 

House of Representatives, 

2008)

Identifying issues involving the 

inclusiveness of reported 

workplace injuries and 

illnesses

69%

2008

Examining Evidence on 

Whether BLS Undercounts 

Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses (Ruser 2008)

Identifying underreporting for 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

and how they can be corrected.

20-70%c

Notes: 

a

 The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74% b

“Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the 

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy. c

 Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS 

6597 

6598 The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 

6599 (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that 

6600 the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent 

6601 (Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 

6602 omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 

6603 are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deaths are also unaccounted for within the survey. 

6604 The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused 

6605 by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some 

6606 correlation may exist. 

6607 

6608 The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 

6609 injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 

6610 According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may 

6611 have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 

6612 illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

6613 (OSHA). 

6614 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

182 

6615 There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 

6616 focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings 

6617 for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial 

6618 underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting 

6619 by physicians (i.e., Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people 

6620 not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these 

6621 studies. 

6622 

6623 Harchelroad et al. (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 

6624 toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 

6625 470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever 

6626 documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 

6627 exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non-reporting. 

6628 

6629 Chafee-Bahamon et al. (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 

6630 similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 

6631 among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 

6632 hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 

6633 hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 

6634 poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 

6635 

6636 The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

6637 illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may 

6638 occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 

6639 could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 

6640 injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

6641 poisonings may be consistently low 

6642 

6643 There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 

6644 OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 

6645 incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 

6646 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 

6647 

6648  The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 

6649  No central reporting point for all incidents; 

6650  Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes; 

6651  Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 

6652  Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 

6653 effects; 

6654  Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 

6655  Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; 

6656  Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 

6657 

6658 There are good reasons to think that underreporting is at least as significant in the agricultural 

6659 sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of 

6660 the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker population as “... 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

183 

6661 younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign-born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized 

6662 to work in the United States.” These attributes point toward a relatively disadvantaged 

6663 workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to 

6664 their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status 

6665 described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek medical care, which 

6666 would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available to be counted in 

6667 poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have 

6668 difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for 

6669 two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to 

6670 receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers (NASS, 2008a). 

6671 

6672 Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a 

6673 population that does not have a lot of resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact 

6674 with health workers because of their immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with 

6675 health workers when they do seek medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 

6676 

6677 The limited available data for pesticide poisonings of farmworkers are consistent with the 

6678 conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 

6679 medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from 

6680 avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 

6681 underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5. 

6682 

6683 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 

6684 

6685 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

6686 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

6687 annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR from 

6688 2003-2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases, 57 percent, 

6689 occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is applicable. Thus, of all occupational pesticide 

6690 incidents found in NPDS, EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 incidents occur on farms, 

6691 nurseries, and greenhouses annually. 

6692 

6693 The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 cases that would likely have been avoided under 

6694 the proposed revisions to the WPS, as explained below. Another 84 cases might possibly have 

6695 been avoided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 

6696 percent of all occupational cases, would be likely or at least possibly avoidable through the 

6697 proposed changes. Given the number of occupational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA 

6698 estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any 

6699 adjustment is made for under-reporting. 

6700 

6701 By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the 

6702 proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA then reviewed these cases for the 

6703 cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 

6704 the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “likely”, “possible” or “not 

6705 likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following 

6706 guidelines: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

184 

6707 

6708  Likely: 

6709 o A technical proposed requirement, such as respirator fit testing or training, field 

6710 posting, or extension of the entry –restricted area to forests and fields could 

6711 mitigate the exposure. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was 

6712 downgraded to “possible.” 

6713  Possible: 

6714 o More frequent or more comprehensive training could mitigate the exposure. 

6715  Unlikely 

6716 o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind 

6717 o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure 

6718 o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of application to row ends in 

6719 orchards 

6720 o The exposure was caused by malfunctioning equipment. 

6721 o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review 

6722 o The information in the case report was insufficient to determine if the changes 

6723 would mitigate the exposure. 

6724 

6725 

6726 EPA did not use all the available cases for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as 

6727 Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certified applicators or applicators under 

6728 their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also 

6729 being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents 

6730 involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consideration here so as not to double count avoided 

6731 incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmworkers or handlers that 

6732 were not applying RUPs. 

6733 

6734 Cases deemed “likely” to be avoided were used to calculate the low-end ratio of acute exposure 

6735 cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and 

6736 “possible” to be avoided was used to calculate the high-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 

6737 unintentional pesticide incidents. 

6738 

6739 The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis. 

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 

6742 Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 

6743 of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticide poisonings where the 

6744 WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. 

6745 

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes for the 

Worker Protection Standard 

Likelihood of being avoided by 

Proposed Rules 

Number 

of Cases 

Avoided 

Percent of Cases 

where WPS is 

Applicable 

(263 Cases) 

Percent of 

Occupational 

Cases 

 (460 Cases) 

Likely 63 24% 14% 

Possible 84 32% 18% 

Both Possible and Likely 147 56% 32% 

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR data. 

6746 

6747 To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents that would be avoided by this rule, 

6748 EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6.5-2 by the annual number of incidents obtained from 

6749 the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 occupational incidents. Given that 14 to 32 

6750 percent of comparable SENSOR cases, i.e., all occupational cases, are likely and/or possibly 

6751 avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can 

6752 prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (See Table 6.5-4). This estimate accounts only 

6753 for reported incidents, which likely make up less than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on 

6754 WPS farms. 

6755 

6756 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided 

6757 

6758 As explained in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 

6759 medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 

6760 These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are 

6761 discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 

6762 effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 

6763 require more treatment, including hospitalization. Workers and handlers suffering from more 

6764 severe effects are more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, one would expect that a more 

6765 severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to 

6766 work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute 

6767 incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 

6768 

6769 Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 

6770 given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by 

6771 

ܸ௜

௜ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௩஺

6772 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

187 

where Vi

Av 6773 is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the 

6774 case, and VPLi is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We identify four severity 

6775 levels as described below: No Effect, Minor Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect. 

6776 

6777 The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 

6778 

ሿ௜ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

6779 

6780 Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

6781 severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

6782 InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self6783 treatments. 

6784 

6785 The value of lost productivity is 

6786 

6787 VPLi= (ωw·work + ωH·housekeeping + ωL·leisure)·DURi

6788 

6789 where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time 

6790 spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, 

6791 and DUR is the duration of the effect. 

6792 

6793 The value of a reduction in premature mortality, the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is 

6794 simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value 

6795 of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are 

6796 derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For 

6797 example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, 

6798 then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 times 10,000—or $5 million. Note that 

6799 this does not mean that any identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate 

6800 value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical 

6801 case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This 

6802 value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted 

6803 from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010). 

6804 

6805 Probability of Effect 

6806 

6807 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

6808 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

6809 annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5-3, about 14 percent of the acute cases 

6810 considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effects,” about 20 percent in 

6811 “moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “major health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of 

6812 cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor 

6813 or moderate effects. 

6814 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

188 

Table 6.5-3: Average Annual Estimate of Annual Pesticide Related Poisoning Incidents 

based on NPDS Data 

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total 

No 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 

6816 The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (American Association of 

6817 Poison Control Centers, undated): 

6818 

6819  No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure. 

6820  Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, 

6821 but they were minimally bothersome and generally resolved rapidly with no residual 

6822 disability or disfigurement. A minor effect is often limited to the skin or mucus 

6823 membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, skin irritation, first-degree dermal burn, sinus 

6824 tachycardia without hypotension, and transient cough are all examples of minor effects). 

6825  Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that 

6826 were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minor 

6827 symptoms. Usually, some form of treatment is indicated. Symptoms were not life6828 threatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion, 

6829 acid-base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to 

6830 treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of 

6831 moderate effects). 

6832  Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were 

6833 life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement (e.g., 

6834 repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory compromise requiring intubation, 

6835 ventricular tachycardia with hypotension, cardiac or respiratory arrest, esophageal 

6836 stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation). 

6837  Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the 

6838 exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, undated). 

6839 

6840 Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 

6841 the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the distribution of 

6842 cases across the five severity levels. As shown in Table 6.5-4, the estimated number of national 

6843 incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except 

6844 for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 

6845 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

189 

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity 

 

Estimate of Number of Cases 

Prevented Annually 

Clinical Effect Share of Total 

Low End Estimate 

(13.6%) 

High End 

Estimate 

(20.1%) 

No 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 whole numbers, except for “Death.” 

6846 

6847 Valuation of Effect 

6848 

6849 The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10). The 

6850 estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 

6851 number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 

6852 likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5.2. 

6853 

6854 Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 

6855 affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 

6856 illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 

6857 for a variety of reasons (EPA 2010). In particular, these estimate do not: (1) address the value of 

6858 avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 

6859 defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 

6860 consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment 

6861 returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is equivalent to avoiding the illness 

6862 entirely). 

6863 

6864 It is also important to recognize that the financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 

6865 farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 

6866 paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 

6867 jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 

6868 greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 

6869 because agricultural work is often seasonal. 

6870 

6871 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 

6872 rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 

6873 are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 

6874 hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 

6875 “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 

6876 sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

190 

6877 productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 

6878 illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 

6879 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 

6880 work, household activities, and leisure. 

6881 

6882 Direct Medical Costs 

6883 

6884 As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 

6885 

ሿ௜ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

6886 

6887 Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

6888 treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

6889 

6890 In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

6891 utilized the NPDS data for 2000-2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at 

6892 health care facilities. Table 6.5-5 presents the number of NPDS cases that were seen at a health 

6893 care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each 

6894 category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the 

6895 probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we use the share of cases from 

6896 NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-5. 

6897 

Table 6.5-5: Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide-Related Acute 

Exposures, NPDS 2000-2005. 

Clinical Effect 

Cases Seen at 

Health Care 

Facility Total Cases 

Share of Cases Seen at Health 

Care Facility 

No 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 

6899 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 

6900 specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For 

6901 Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) the average charges 

6902 reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007. 

6903 

6904 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from physician visit benchmark fees for 

6905 evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 

6906 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 

medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals) 5 6907 . 

 

5

The average facility charge for all providers in 2007 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

191 

6908 Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 

6909 established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 

6910 describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 

6911 2007, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category 

6912 was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. 

6913 Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the 

6914 average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data 

6915 reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, 

6916 payments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. This may be an underestimate, 

6917 especially for moderate cases, where some treatment is required, which would imply that the 

6918 outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 

6919 

6920 Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

6921 treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-6. 

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 

6924 The Value of Lost Productivity

6925 

6926 The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 

6927 typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 

6928 As noted above, we calculate this value as 

6929 

Eሾܸܲܮ௜ሿ ൌ ሺ߱௪ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ு݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱௅݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ௜

6930 

6931 Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

6932 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

6933 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

6934 

6935 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 

6936 leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2007b), 

6937 an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a seven6938 day week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the average workweek for 

6939 farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per week (DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here 

6940 because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Survey discussed in the next paragraph. The 

6941 estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, because leisure and household activities also have 

6942 a value in our analysis. 

6943 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

192 

6944 Time spent in housekeeping activities varies considerably by gender. According to the American 

6945 Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2007c), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 

hours per day in household activities6 6946 and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 

6947 hours per day of household activities. There are 78.25 million men employed in the United 

6948 States and 67.79 million women (BLS, 2007a). Thus, the weighted average of time spent in 

6949 housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day. 

6950 

6951 Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 

6952 hours per day. 

6953 

6954 The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and 

6955 handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $10.01 per hour. This analysis 

6956 assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, 

6957 but the results are not sensitive to this assumption, because we are also measuring the value of 

6958 lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for 

6959 a personal/home care aide, $9.50 (BLS, 2007a). This labor category was chosen as most closely 

6960 representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an 

6961 injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the 

6962 after-tax wage rate for workers, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work 

6963 and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax 

6964 Foundation, 2008), which leaves an after-tax return of $6.93 per hour. 

6965 

6966 Table 6.5-7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 

6967 in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 

6968 Table 6.5-7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 

6969 week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 

6970 estimated to be $135.69 per day. 

6971 

 

6

 Household activity is a broad category that includes all tasks to maintain a household, such as cooking, cleaning, 

home and vehicle maintenance, decoration, and yard care, as well as organizational activities like paperwork. 
*** 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 $10.01c $56.07 

Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50d $27.93 

Leisure 7.46 b $6.93e $51.69 

 

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $135.69 

Sources: 

a BLS, 2007, Current Population Survey (CPS) 

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work 

and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep 

c

EPA Estimates – see Chapter 3 

d

 BLS, 2007 CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($380) and 

assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $9.50 per hour. 

e

Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (30.8%). 

6972 

6973 The duration of illness by medical outcome/severity is derived from severity definitions for the 

6974 NPDS data. The NPDS data report the duration of clinical effects for minor, moderate and major 

6975 severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and less than or equal to 24 hours.” For 

6976 the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a 

6977 weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. The weights are the share of cases 

6978 reported in the NPDS that have that duration for each severity level. For example, for moderate 

6979 clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have 

6980 durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc. 

6981 

6982 Since exposure durations by clinical effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as 

6983 a range of time (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low-end and high-end scenario for 

6984 each duration category. The low-end scenario uses either the low-end estimate if an exact 

6985 duration range was given (e.g., > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low-end is 1 day) or if the range is 

6986 one-sided (e.g., < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used (e.g., for < 2 hours; the low-end is 1 

6987 hour). The high-end scenario uses the high-end of the duration range given (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 

6988 24 hours; the high-end is 1 day). For this analysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a 

6989 duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1-3 months, with one month for the low 

6990 estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high 

6991 end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis. 

6992 

6993 There are no data available on the duration of clinical effects for “no effect.” However, people 

6994 who visited a health care facility for “no effect” (34.6%) were assumed to experience reduced 

6995 productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low-end duration of one hour (about 

6996 .04 days) and the high-end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases 

6997 with “no effect” visited a health care facility, the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 

6998 days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days). 

6999 

7000 Table 6.5-8 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 

7001 with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

194 

7002 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($135.69) to yield high and low 

7003 estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 

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[VPLi]

 c

No Effect Low-End 0.014 b

 $1.96

High-end 0.029b $3.92

Minor Low-End 0.52 $70.39 

High-end 1.78 $242.07 

Moderate Low-End 1.05 $141.99 

High-end 3.39 $460.23 

Major Low-End 3.95 $535.72 

High-end 14.41 $1,954.97 

Sources: 

a

 With the exception of no effect, the average duration in days was calculated as the weighted average of duration 

estimates for each severity level, with the weights given by the share of patients with that duration. As a simple 

example, 31.9% of patients with a clinical effect level of “moderate” had a duration of 8 – 24 hours, so the weight 

on 8 – 24 hours is 0.319 for the moderate effect level. 

b

 The average duration for no effect was assumed to be the shortest duration group presented (< 2 hours); so the 

low-end duration is the midpoint of 1 hour or 0.04 days and the high-end duration is 2 hours or 0.08 days, scaled 

by 34.6%, the percentage of cases that sought care. 

c With the exception of no effect, the unit cost for lost productivity day by scenario and clinical effect was 

calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity 

($135.69). 

7005 

7006 The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 

7007 

7008 The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 

7009 (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 

7010 reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 

7011 resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 

7012 productivity is included in the VSL. 

7013 

7014 Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents 

7015 

7016 The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10. For each 

7017 level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of 

7018 premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity 

7019 levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-9 shows the low end estimates, 

7020 which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of 

7021 prevented cases, while Table 6.5-10 shows the high end estimates. 

7022 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

195 

Table 6.5-9: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed 

Changes to the WPS 

Clinical 

Effect 

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year 

Medical Costs 

per Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case 

Average Annual 

Total Cost 

Avoided 

No 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 Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed 

Changes to the WPS 

Clinical 

Effect 

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year 

Medical 

Costs per 

Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case 

Average Annual 

Total Cost 

Avoided 

No 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 

7026 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 

7027 to 2.8 million. Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is between 

7028 $10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 

7029 million and $21.3 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. 

7030 

7031 There are limitations to these estimates. As discussed above we expect that a large proportion of 

7032 accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of workers and handlers never get reported to a national 

7033 poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to 

7034 report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Other workers with incomplete 

7035 information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of 

7036 reprisal. All indications are that underreporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

196 

7037 not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This 

7038 underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. 

7039 

7040 In Table 6.5-11, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized 

7041 estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting), 

7042 then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is 

7043 underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-11 shows a range 

7044 of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 

7045 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about 

7046 underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and underreporting is equally 

7047 likely in all poisoning cases, then the actual value of prevented poisoning due to the rule would 

7048 be over $28 million per year, substantially higher than those estimated here, which assumes 

7049 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these unreported acute 

7050 exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates vary by severity, in 

7051 such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, then the effects 

7052 of underreporting would be correspondingly lower. For example, if deaths were never under7053 reported, but all other severity levels of illness were under-reported, the actual value of prevented 

7054 poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5.7 million per year. This is because the 

7055 value of a statistical life is so high, the results change dramatically with changes in the estimated 

7056 number of deaths prevented. Later in this chapter we will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of 

7057 acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, 

7058 which is a plausible estimate. 

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 

7061 All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute 

7062 exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section. There is no attempt 

7063 to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; we 

7064 calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. 

7065 

7066 It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by 

7067 farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to 

7068 absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 

7069 farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 

7070 a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively 

7071 greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

197 

7072 below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and 

7073 average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 

7074 consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005). 

7075 

7076 Some of the proposed requirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements 

7077 have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years 

7078 after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, 

7079 requirements on who can train workers, changes to the content of warning signs, and the 

7080 requirement that a handler suspend or cease application if a person enters the treated area. The 

7081 quantified benefit estimates presented in this section are not adjusted for this change. This is 

7082 because most of the delayed changes, such as training materials on how to safeguard the families 

7083 of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up data used for estimating illnesses, as discussed 

7084 in that section. Of the cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only 

7085 six would possibly have been prevented by the individual items that are required two years after 

7086 signature of the rule. In all cases the relevant provision is that an application be suspended if a 

7087 person enters the treated area. In at least three of these six cases, other provisions of the 

7088 proposed rule would likely have protected against the exposure. If all six cases are classified as 

7089 unlikely to be prevented until year three, the quantified estimates of benefits change slightly. 

7090 They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in 

7091 estimates is relatively small, however; annualized benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 

7092 and $30,000 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates 

7093 are used. 

7094 

7095 The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 

7096 families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 

7097 

7098 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers 

7099 and Handlers 

7100 

7101 In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

7102 presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

7103 reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

7104 are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 

7105 EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health 

7106 effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning 

7107 surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 

7108 to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this 

7109 section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) 

7110 to chronic health conditions, i.e., chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 

7111 

7112 It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 

7113 outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 

7114 causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information linking 

7115 pesticide exposure is compelling enough to suggest some of the statistical associations may at 

7116 some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure 

7117 reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

198 

7118 

7119 While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 

7120 pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 

7121 evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

7122 non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically several 

7123 epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within 

7124 different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are usually required 

7125 before researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. The 

7126 environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of 

7127 pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA believes additional causal links between pesticide 

7128 exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. 

7129 

7130 Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 

7131 world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposure7132 chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

7133 the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 

7134 collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 

7135 issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency 

7136 for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite 

7137 carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as probable carcinogens. Research is 

7138 underway to determine if other pesticides are also carcinogenic. There is a large body of 

7139 epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, 

7140 neurological, respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result 

7141 from pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 

7142 specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 

7143 

7144 There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by federal governments in the U.S. 

7145 and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hypotheses to link 

7146 pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is 

7147 the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute 

7148 of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other 

7149 collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 

7150 including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 

7151 array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 

7152 links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al., 1996, 

7153 Nordby et al., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between 

7154 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al., 2006). The Korean 

7155 Multi-Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 

7156 as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 

7157 (Yoo et al., 2002). The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a collaborative effort, 

7158 AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 

7159 cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 

7160 pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al., 2011). 

7161 

7162 Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 

7163 complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals, not just pesticides; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

199 

7164 exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e., intermittent or sustained; and 

7165 multiple routes of exposure, e.g., dermal and inhalation. Many epidemiologic studies that include 

7166 certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 

7167 other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, label use 

7168 of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al., 2006). These certified applicators that 

7169 form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 

7170 workers and handlers. 

7171 

7172 Another complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 

7173 implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 

7174 protective equipment, revised re-entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide 

7175 products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 

7176 contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 

7177 necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g., if the pesticide was already cancelled or 

7178 withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 

7179 and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several 

7180 decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic effects with typically long latency 

7181 periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be 

7182 interpreted with caution when applied to current regulatory questions. 

7183 

7184 Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 

7185 linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early exposures may occur from pesticides 

7186 that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have shown the 

7187 potential for “take home” exposures, where an agricultural worker brings pesticide residues 

7188 home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). Because one of the changes in the rule is an 

7189 increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of exposure should be 

7190 reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including 

7191 children. 

7192 

7193 These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 

7194 evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health 

7195 impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 

7196 pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide 

7197 exposure, and in some instances shows the importance of exposure mitigation for individual 

7198 pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker 

7199 or handler exposures when the current state of the science does not support action on individual 

7200 chemicals. 

7201 

7202 Later in this section, EPA summarizes some of the research on chronic health effects from 

7203 pesticide exposure that have shown possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological 

7204 effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like 

7205 impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes, and respiratory problems like asthma. Although 

7206 several other associations have been measured in the literature, these are selected for discussion 

7207 here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of 

7208 studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular 

7209 pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests that the long term health of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

200 

7210 agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific 

7211 research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to 

7212 estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from 

7213 reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8. 

7214 

7215 6.6.1. Cancer Risks 

7216 

7217 Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 

7218 various peer-review bodies, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

7219 associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in 

7220 experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has 

7221 only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides 

7222 and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as probable human 

7223 carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999). However, many studies have evaluated other possible links 

7224 between pesticide exposure and cancer. 

7225 

7226 Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 

7227 articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide 

7228 exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 

7229 specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 

7230 cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 

7231 exposure (Bassil et al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al., 2010; Van Maele et 

7232 al., 2011, Wigle et al., 2009, Turner et al., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al., 

7233 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 

7234 pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 

7235 

7236 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

7237 agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 

7238 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 

7239 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 

7240 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 

7241 of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

7242 to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

7243 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 

7244 engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009). 

7245 

7246 Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 

7247 lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for 

7248 example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 

7249 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 

7250 stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009). 

7251 

7252 Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 

7253 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

201 

7254 Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 

7255 example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 

7256 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al., 1997). 

7257 Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period 

7258 coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 

7259 et al., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Blair and Chui 

7260 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 

7261 as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certainty at this time. 

7262 Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 

7263 population, Koutros, et al. (2010) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 

7264 lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 

7265 population-based case-control study in Sweden, including increased risks for users of glyphosate 

7266 (Eriksson et al., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers, 

7267 however additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and 

7268 the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the 

7269 risk of these cancers. 

7270 

7271 In a review by Bassil et al. (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 

7272 leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 

7273 with statistically significant results. Several case-control studies looked at children that had been 

7274 exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose parents used 

7275 insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant 

7276 (Bassil et al., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the 

7277 systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether population bias was a factor in 

7278 the results of this review. 

7279 

7280 In the Bassil et al. review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

7281 examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

7282 the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

7283 associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

7284 pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

7285 pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

7286 postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

7287 risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007). 

7288 

7289 Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 

7290 exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers’s children. They found no evidence of a direct 

7291 link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an 

7292 association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and 

7293 their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 

7294 significant related exposures. 

7295 

7296 Prostate Cancer 

7297 

7298 For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

7299 are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

202 

7300 disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

7301 prostate cancer which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

7302 non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 

7303 members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

7304 increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010). Case-control analysis within the AHS suggest 

7305 exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but only 

7306 among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al.. 2003). Additional follow-up 

7307 within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

7308 Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 

7309 varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 

7310 that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 

7311 not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 

7312 variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

7313 and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). Although these genetic variations do not fully 

7314 explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may 

7315 play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, 

7316 possibly due to differing study designs used. 

7317 

7318 In investigations of farmworker populations, prostate cancer associations have also been found. 

7319 For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 

7320 California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 

7321 workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer. 

7322 

7323 Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 

7324 this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al. 2012). For the 

7325 purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 

7326 outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 

7327 a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 

7328 among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 

7329 This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 

7330 and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 

7331 aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 

7332 slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 

7333 to distinguish clear causal pathways. However the study is supportive of previous work 

7334 concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 

7335 the AHS. 

7336 

7337 Lung Cancer 

7338 

7339 There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al.

7340 (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 

7341 AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in 

7342 the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the 

7343 population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung 

7344 cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004). 

7345 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

203 

7346 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects 

7347 

7348 Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 

7349 exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 

7350 investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 

7351 preliminary investigations other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 

7352 However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 

7353 and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general 

7354 neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules 

7355 reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health 

7356 effects as well. 

7357 

7358 Neurological Function 

7359 

7360 The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 

7361 spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al., (2007), investigated the 

7362 hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed 

7363 private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 

7364 contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 

7365 PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 

7366 who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose7367 response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 

7368 association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 

7369 recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self7370 reporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 

7371 participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al., 2011). 

7372 

7373 In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al. (2007) 

7374 evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 

7375 and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 

7376 that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 

7377 exposures of pesticides on the job.” 

7378 

7379 Sanborn et al. (2007) examined the non-cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 

7380 most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 

7381 association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 

7382 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 

7383 depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al., 2007). Kamel et al., 

7384 (2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime 

7385 pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. 

7386 

7387 In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic 

7388 workers, Rothlein et al., (2006) examined the possible neurobehavioral effects of low-level 

7389 chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Residues of these pesticides were found in a 

7390 substantial portion of workers’ homes. A significant correlation was observed between urinary 

7391 metabolite levels and total organophosphate house dust levels. Poor performance on five 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

204 

7392 neurobehavioral tests was associated with higher levels of the average combined thiomethyl 

7393 metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found between 

7394 environmental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the take7395 home pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices. 

7396 

7397 Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies 

7398 (Rauh et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the 

7399 relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 

7400 neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 

7401 al., 2011), using the AHS cohort reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational 

7402 exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge 

7403 uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear 

7404 biologically plausible mechanism of action, among other study characteristics. 

7405 

7406 Respiratory Function 

7407 

7408 Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 

7409 effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 

7410 trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 

7411 asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 

7412 several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et 

7413 al., (2008) reported an association between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and 

7414 asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of 

7415 asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an 

7416 important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworkers, 

7417 rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as 

7418 well. Salam et al., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among 

7419 those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children 

7420 with early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 

7421 (Salameh et al., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms. 

7422 

7423 Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 

7424 inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 

7425 a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 

7426 it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 

7427 Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and 

7428 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an association that was stronger among those with a 

7429 high pesticide exposure event. 

7430 

7431 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 

7432 

7433 Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation 

7434 between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality 

7435 of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 

7436 plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

205 

7437 adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 

7438 and standards. 

7439 

7440 6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 

7441 

7442 The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, 

7443 as well as reduce the non-occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There 

7444 is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 

7445 would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In 

7446 general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, 

7447 the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for 

7448 use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed WPS changes are a 

7449 way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational 

7450 health. 

7451 

7452 The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

7453 effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 

7454 illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 

7455 by family members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those 

7456 stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 

7457 tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instability and falling, all of which result in difficulty 

7458 performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is 

7459 a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, 

7460 fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has 

7461 a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 

7462 2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is often fatal. The 

7463 five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed 

7464 with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011). 

7465 

7466 Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 

7467 prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 

7468 pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 

7469 disease are great, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 

7470 paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 

7471 been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 

7472 estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower7473 growing NHL (Kutikova, et al.) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half 

7474 years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al.). These costs are very high, especially so 

7475 relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely 

7476 to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs, which is likely an under-estimate of 

7477 the true cost of illness. 

7478 

7479 The next section details the break-even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 

7480 potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid 

7481 illness or death. 

7482 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

206 

7483 6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 

7484 

7485 In this section, EPA presents a “break-even” analysis. This analysis shows that preventing a 

7486 very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in 

7487 benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits 

7488 and the estimated costs of the rule. As described below, preventing only a few pesticide-related 

7489 illnesses annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate 

7490 enough in benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the 

7491 quantified estimate of benefits from reduced acute exposures. The break-even number of cases 

7492 is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over 

7493 a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider non7494 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma 

7495 to demonstrate the potential benefits in the proposed rule from reducing exposures to chronic 

7496 illnesses. These are the illnesses for which there is evidence of an association with pesticide 

7497 exposure and for which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer-reviewed literature 

7498 or may be transferred. 

7499 6.8.1. Background 

7500 

7501 The break-even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 

7502 exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. 

7503 The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from 

7504 reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness 

7505 reduction to equal costs. A break-even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are 

7506 lacking (OMB, 1996). Although we cannot quantify net benefits of chronic disease avoided, we 

7507 can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the 

7508 net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also 

7509 be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures to 

7510 pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 

7511 

7512 Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 

7513 could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 

7514 used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified (EPA, 2010; EPA, 2006; 

7515 EPA 2005; EPA, 2000). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented 

7516 illness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 

7517 what is done here. These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known 

7518 causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g., gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial 

7519 contamination of water. The break-even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 

7520 exposure and chronic disease, where causal links are considered in the peer-reviewed literature 

7521 (see Section 6.7). 

7522 

7523 The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to 

7524 health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily 

7525 estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due 

7526 to data limitations, as noted above, or the non-pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 

7527 noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

207 

7528 exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will 

7529 likely accrue as a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS. 

7530 

7531 Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure 

7532 reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 

7533 unable to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While 

7534 exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 

7535 magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect, i.e., they influence 

7536 behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have 

7537 been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 

7538 health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 6.5, the causal nature of these associations 

7539 have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 

7540 health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 

7541 time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease 

7542 outcomes in the population (i.e., there is a multi-factorial web of disease causation), however it is 

7543 plausible that some instances of disease (specific cases) could be attributable to pesticide 

7544 exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 

7545 and their families. Relative to other studies of the effects of occupational exposure to chemicals, 

7546 studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 

7547 specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 

7548 by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 

7549 also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on 

7550 available application data (Zahm et al., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993). 

7551 

7552 The break-even analysis is meant for illustrative purposes. The analysis is designed to 

7553 demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to 

7554 equilibrate the total WPS costs using traditional and conservative assumptions from the 

7555 environmental economics peer-reviewed literature. 

7556 

7557 In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 

7558 observations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that 

7559 discussion is information on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort 

7560 study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses initiated in the early 1990’s. The study is 

7561 recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively 

7562 validated. Because of these characteristics and strengths, it is appropriate to use the results and 

7563 findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this 

7564 study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators with respect to algorithms, exposure 

7565 assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting 

7566 epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound 

7567 scientific principles and use of Bradford Hill criteria for evidence of causation. The work 

7568 products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent 

7569 Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and 

7570 characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 

7571 past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 

7572 studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additional information outside of 

7573 any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real-world exposure potential. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

208 

7574 putative associations suggested in epidemiology studies like the AHS can help in evaluating 

7575 potential health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic 

7576 evaluation of possible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection 

7577 standard. 

7578 

7579 6.8.2. Method 

7580 

7581 For the acute estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found by 

7582 evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break-even 

7583 analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 

7584 of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 

7585 to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 

7586 farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 

7587 reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that different 

7588 exposure-response profiles exist for specific pesticide-chronic health effect association. 

7589 

7590 As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 

7591 non-specific pesticide exposure. For this break-even exercise, however, we will consider only a 

7592 few illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 

7593 cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. Numerous 

7594 observational studies have been performed evaluating pesticide exposure in association with 

7595 these human health outcomes. While scientific consensus has not established these associations 

7596 as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these 

7597 health outcomes are identified for the break-even analysis. 

7598 

7599 It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 

7600 included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic 

7601 exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 

7602 shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 

7603 not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing 

7604 observational studies in the farm worker population. 

7605 

7606 To estimate the break-even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 

7607 disease incidence, which describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed 

7608 each year. 

7609 

7610 Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 

7611 an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 

7612 Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure 

7613 consists of four components: 

7614 

7615  “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 

7616  “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 

7617  Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

7618 activities; and 

7619  Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

209 

7620 

7621 WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

7622 benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

7623 excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

7624 health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

7625 value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 

7626 are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 

7627 the WTP estimates presented here. 

7628 

7629 Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 

7630 consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For 

7631 example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 

7632 non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 

7633 benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves applying available estimates of WTP for 

7634 preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 

7635 

7636 For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 

7637 EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 

7638 2008 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a 

7639 distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 

7640 

7641 The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of 

7642 prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share (PrevShare) 

7643 times the number of cases: 

௜ݏ݁ݏܽܥݒ݁ݎܲ · ௜߱ ෍ ൌ ݏݐ݂݁݊݁݅ܤ ݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ

௜

௜ݏ݁ݏܽܥ · ௜݁ݎ݄ܵܽݒ݁ݎܲ · ௜߱෍ ൌ

௜

7644 where ωi can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the break7645 even analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or 

7646 equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute benefits. 

7647 The break-even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the estimated 

7648 cost (Cost) and the estimated acute benefits (Acute): 

݁.ݐݑܿܣ െ ݐݏ݋ܥ ൒ ா஻݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ

7649 

7650 The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 

the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, ChronicBE 7651 . A simplifying 

7652 assumption is that PrevSharei is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage reduction 

7653 in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of 

7654 lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with tobacco 

7655 smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect 

7656 on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShareLung Cancer is 10% of 

7657 the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10 – 15% 

7658 of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al., 2008). 

7659 

7660 6.8.3. Data 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

210 

7661 

7662 To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 

7663 the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 

7664 The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 and the quantified acute benefits of the rule were 

7665 estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 

7666 available. Estimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 

7667 and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 

7668 for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 

7669 in the analysis are summarized in Table 6.8-1. 

7670 

7671 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 

7672 

7673 The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 

7674 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 

7675 21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al., 2011). An 

7676 estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million was derived in 

7677 the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

7678 (EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al. (1996), from which it was determined that 

7679 the median risk-risk trade-off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 

7680 58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non-fatal lymphoma was 

7681 calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estimate of VSL of $7.9 million, we 

7682 estimate a mean WTP for non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%). 

7683 

7684 Prostate Cancer 

7685 

7686 Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of 

7687 cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003 – 2007 (U.S. Cancer 

7688 Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 

7689 on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 

7690 reported in 2007. The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 

7691 cases in 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 

7692 on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 

7693 2010). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal 

7694 cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 

7695 overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 

7696 incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 

7697 al., 2003; Koutros, 2010). 

7698 

7699 An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 

7700 Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 

7701 is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 

7702 appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 

7703 lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al. (2006) 

7704 estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 

7705 Kutikova et al. (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 

7706 under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

211 

7707 Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 

7708 yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000. 

7709 

7710 This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that 

7711 may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive. 

7712 Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more 

7713 aggressive and require more expensive treatment than those found in elderly men. 

7714 

7715 Chronic Bronchitis 

7716 

7717 Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 

7718 bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long-term cough, shortness of breath, 

7719 excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 

7720 life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 

7721 

7722 Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease 

7723 Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per year (639 from the same source). These figures 

7724 are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identified 

7725 within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million 

7726 diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new 

7727 cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the 

7728 incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using the prevalence would be misleading, so for this 

7729 analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung 

7730 function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has 

7731 provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the 

7732 Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide 

7733 estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991). 

7734 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

212 

7735 Parkinson’s Disease 

7736 

7737 Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually 

7738 (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 

the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14th 7739 leading cause of 

death in the United States7 7740 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 

7741 The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’s, such as swallowing problems which lead to 

7742 undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 

7743 Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these 

7744 complications, we take a conservative approach in this break-even analysis, and ignore the 

7745 fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 

7746 Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 

7747 Parkinson’s disease, because in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 

7748 mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. The WTP to avoid chronic 

7749 bronchitis is $800,000, which we will use for Parkinson’s disease. 

7750 

7751 There are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 

7752 and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 

7753 there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 

7754 above was based on a study by Magat et al. (1996), which compared risk-risk tradeoffs for 

7755 curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a non7756 cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 

7757 nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 

7758 reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for estimating WTP for 

7759 avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 

7760 $3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible 

7761 fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis. 

7762 

7763 Lung Cancer 

7764 

7765 Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 

7766 common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 

7767 Cancer Statistics, 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to 

7768 be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 

7769 of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 

7770 lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). 

7771 Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 

7772 years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that 

7773 lung cancer preventions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 

7774 roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non-smokers. This is because changes to 

7775 the WPS are not expected to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 

7776 which is smoking. 

7777 

 

7

 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et al., 

2010). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

213 

7778 There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer7779 reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 

7780 analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 

7781 and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal 

7782 lung cancer. This will be the same value ($800,000) used for Parkinson’s disease, because they 

7783 come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic Analysis 

for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005)8 7784 . 

7785 

7786 Asthma 

7787 

7788 Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 

7789 difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al., 2012) , is another common 

7790 respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al., 2008)). 

7791 Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 

7792 Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 

7793 asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 

7794 estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 

7795 Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 

7796 478,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 – 2009 divided by nine 

7797 years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 

7798 (Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 

7799 analysis. 

7800 

7801 The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 

7802 rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perpetuity to represent preventing 

7803 development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per 

case9 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) provide estimates for WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a 

Taiwanese population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute. 

Because the estimates are for a non-US population they are also used here for illustrative purposes only. Finally, 

Itaoka, et al. (2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working 

paper and therefore illustrative only. 

9

 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provide more recent 

estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

214 

7806 Table 6.8-1. Information for Calculating Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided 

Disease 

WTP to Avoid 

Disease, ωi 

($1000) Annual Cases 

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 4,606 49,000 

Fatal NHL 7,900 21,000 

Curable Prostate Cancer 780 223,000 

Fatal Prostate Cancer 7,900 29,000 

Parkinson’s Disease 800 60,000 

Curable Lung Cancer 800 36,000 

Fatal Lung Cancer 7,900 190,000 

Fatal Bronchitis 7,900 640 

Asthma 73 480,000 

Fatal Asthma 7,900 3,400 

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010); 

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease Control, 

(2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations 

7807 

7808 6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation 

7809 

7810 In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $64.6 million 

7811 and $75.1 million per year. A reasonable estimate of the benefits from reduction in acute 

7812 pesticide poisonings, after adjustment for underreporting, is from $10 – 15 million per year. (See 

7813 Table 3.6 –10, with calculations based on 20 – 25% reporting). To find the break-even point, we 

7814 need to find the reduction in illness that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the 

7815 quantified acute benefits. For this analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates 

7816 benefits of at least the high value of the estimated costs ($75.1 million) and estimated acute 

7817 benefits of $11.4 million, for a difference between estimated costs and quantified benefits of 

7818 $63.7 million. 

7819 

7820 Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.006% (and the rate of lung cancer by 0.0006%) 

7821 is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close the high estimate 

7822 of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness would have an 

7823 estimated benefit of $64.6 million dollars annually. The results here obviously change based on 

7824 assumptions about under-reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate 

7825 of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits 

7826 estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 3.6 –10). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% 

7827 (0.0007% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $75.3 million in benefits is more 

7828 than the total high-end costs estimate of $75.1 million.. The reduction to break-even with only 

7829 $2.8 million in acute benefits is about 0.0067%, and about 0.0059% to break even with a gap of 

7830 $63.9 million. 

7831 

7832 Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.006% would reduce the 

7833 number of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2.94 non-fatal and 1.26 fatal cases 

7834 per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 13.38 non-fatal and 1.74 fatal 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

215 

7835 cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.6 per year; reduce the number of fatal 

7836 bronchitis cases by 0.04 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 28.8 cases, and fatal 

7837 asthma cases by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the 

7838 reduction in other diseases, or 0.0006%, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average 

7839 of 0.22 non-fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year. 

7840 

7841 Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 

7842 nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a much smaller population, farmworkers 

7843 and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break-even chronic benefits 

7844 will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 

7845 which we describe below. 

7846 

7847 It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 

7848 community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and 

7849 disease described above and in Section 6.5. However, we do not make that assumption here. 

7850 Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. 

7851 The share is about 0.75%, based on the 2,323,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 

7852 308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers 

7853 required to reach the break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. 

7854 A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0.8% (0.08% for lung cancer), will generate $64.8 

7855 million in benefits. Across all diseases, the reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 

7856 8,000 cases that might occur. Table 6.8-2 shows the calculations for farmworker cases. The 

7857 estimated farmworker cases are 0.75% of the annual cases for the United States, and the break7858 even cases are the number of cases that prevented to reach the breakeven point. 

7859 

7860 Table 6.8-2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis 

Disease 

Annual 

Cases 

Incidence 

(per 

100,000) 1

Annual Cases 

Farmworkers2

“Break-Even” 

Avoided Cases 

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s 

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.95 

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 158 1.26 

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 72.2 1,678 13.42 

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 218 1.75 

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 451 3.61 

Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 271 0.253

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,430 1.143

Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.04 

Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3,611 28.89 

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 26 0.21 

Source: EPA calculations. 

1

 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census 

Bureau, 2011). 2

 Based on incidence rates for farmworkers being equal to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence 

rates may be higher; see the text. 

3

 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 

7862 It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break-even analysis is 

7863 plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8-2, the number of cases needed to reach the break-even 

7864 point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even 

7865 when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to the population at large. As discussed in 

7866 Section 6.6, there is a possible association between the diseases discussed here and pesticide 

7867 exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. 

7868 The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach the break-even 

7869 point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general population. For 

7870 this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. 

7871 The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide applicators and their spouses. This cohort is 

7872 healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although 

7873 farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to 

7874 pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite different: farmworkers may be more likely to be 

7875 exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. Pesticide 

7876 handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to certified 

7877 applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be exposed than 

7878 are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against pesticide 

7879 exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of these 

7880 differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher or 

7881 lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 

7882 implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 

7883 estimates. 

7884 

7885 For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al. (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.2410 7886 . Using the 

7887 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general 

7888 population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 

7889 AHS population. 

7890 

7891 If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 

7892 likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 

7893 rates shown in Table 6.8-2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. population; for 

7894 prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result in death. 

7895 Because only males get prostate cancer, the incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 

7896 223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for 

7897 farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect 

7898 about 1,913 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of 

7899 farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate. 

7900 

7901 The break-even number of cases of non-fatal prostate cancer with a 0.8% reduction among 

7902 farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the 

7903 risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in 

7904 the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163.55, still well above the general population level. 

7905 

 

10 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent 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 

7906 A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general 

7907 population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 

7908 would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break-even number 

7909 of cases is about 1.75 annually. To reach the high-end reduction the incidence rate among 

7910 farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the 

7911 diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 

7912 and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 

7913 rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010) report a 

7914 standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 

7915 estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 

7916 procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 

7917 be about 18.6 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.95 cases annually would change the 

7918 incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.44 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 

7919 among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.90 per 100,000, 

7920 still well above the rate we estimate for the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For 

7921 Parkinson’s disease, van der Markl et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 

7922 cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 

7923 corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5 

7924 among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break-even point 

7925 among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm 

7926 women in the AHS, Hoppin et al. (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for 

7927 those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 

7928 rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 

7929 100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be 

7930 about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 

7931 population. Reducing cases to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the 

7932 estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to about 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma 

7933 incidence rate would remain unchanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described 

7934 above, even after reductions in cases among farmworkers to reach the break-even point, the rate 

7935 of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general 

7936 population. 

7937 

7938 As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 

7939 higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two 

7940 exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 

7941 determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al., (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 

7942 among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 

7943 association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 

7944 but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007b) reports an odds 

7945 ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 

7946 exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those are may not reflect the 

7947 low-level chronic exposure relevant for the break-even analysis. However, if we assume the 

7948 farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the 

7949 number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence 

7950 rate is the same as the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other 

7951 diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

218 

7952 of the general population (Alavanja et al., 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are 

7953 generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 

7954 If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.08% (10% of the reduction for other 

7955 diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 to 5.12 

7956 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.03 per 100,000 for fatal lung 

7957 cancer. 

7958 

7959 In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and 

7960 quantified acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the 

7961 farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to 

7962 farmworkers. 

7963 

7964 There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break-even analysis is necessary. 

7965 Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break-even 

7966 point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 

7967 cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 

7968 These diseases discussed here are chronic conditions that may have long latency periods of 5-15 

7969 years, i.e., a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 

7970 Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 

7971 means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.7% to 0.98%. At a 7% discount rate, 

7972 the reduction to reach the break-even point would reach 1.20%. 

7973 

7974 6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions 

7975 

7976 The break-even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses 

7977 can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 

7978 demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year 

7979 across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to 

7980 ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 

7981 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

219 

7982 Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden 

7983 

7984 Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork 

7985 burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of 

7986 complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or 

7987 otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 

7988 expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 

7989 Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and 

7990 Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, in 

7991 conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 

7992 Analysis. See Appendix B. 

7993 

7994 The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8,355,847 

7995 hours. This is an increase of 6,579,716 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR 

7996 approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. The increase in burden is due to both 

7997 program changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 

7998 frequency of required information exchange. The program changes include modifications to 

7999 restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 

8000 communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); increased posting of 

8001 pesticide application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; 

8002 recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. 

8003 Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to better information 

8004 available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates. 

8005 

8006 The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all proposed 

8007 revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 

8008 incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 

8009 

8010 Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on 

8011 the establishment and accessible for inspection. 

8012 

8013 There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed 

8014 rule imposes any requirements on the Agency. 

8015 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

220 

8016 Accounting Statement 8017 

8018 Rule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 

Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate 

BENEFITS Monetized Benefits $70 – 80 million/year $67.6 million/year > $93 million/year  Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents $10 – 15 million/year $2.8 million/year $28 million/year 

 Reduced effects of chronic 

pesticide exposure $64.8 million/year $64.8 million/year 

Quantified Benefits Qualitative Benefits 

 Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost 

of treatment and loss of productivity 

 Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure  Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to 

farmworker families 

COSTS Monetized Costs 

 $543 – 636 million 

over 10 years at 3% discount rate 

 $62 – 72 million/year 

$39.9 million/year $74.1 million/year 

Quantified Costs Qualitative Costs TRANSFERS none 

8019 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

221 

Category Effects 

State, local, and/or tribal governments 

None. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement but revisions will not change level of effort. 

Small business 

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

 The rule will affect over 200,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses 

and several hundred small commercial entites that are contracted to apply 

pesticides. 

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

average small entity. Highest anticipated impact less than 1% of annual sales. 

EA 

Impact on Jobs 

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

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $5/year.  The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to 

increase by $60, but this is about 0.25 percent of the cost of a part-time employee. 

EA 

8020 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

222 

References 

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C Bailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012. 

Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001–

2010. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. 

At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf. 

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP 

Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the 

agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85. 

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A 

Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 

Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide 

applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 

January 15, 2013. 

Ali, M., and G. Lucier. 2011. Financial Characteristics of Vegetable and Melon Farms. 

Outlook report VGS-342-01, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 

Feb. 

American Association of Poison Control Centers, undated. NPDS Annual Report Terminology, 

http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/NewsMediaResources/NPDSAnnualReportTe

rminology.aspx,

Andreotti G, L Beane-Freeman, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural 

pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. Int J 

Cancer 124:2495–2500. 

Arcury TA, JG Grzywacz, DB Barr, J Tapia, H Chen, and SA Quandt. 2007. Pesticide Urinary 

Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households. 

Environ Health Perspect 115:1254-1260. 

Arcury, T A, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Chen, QM Vallejos, L Galván, DB Barr, and SA 

Quandt. 2010. Repeated pesticide exposure among North Carolina migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 802–813. 

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health 

Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness 

surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public 

Health, 92: 1421–1429. 

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in 

the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health 

Policy, Summer:9(2). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

223 

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO 

Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educational intervention to prevent pesticideinduced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123-5. 

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 

pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11. 

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 

Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Time Series." Environmental 

International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209. 

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005. 

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study 

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079. 

Bell EM, DP Sandler, MC Alavanja. 2006. High pesticide exposure events among farmers and 

spouses enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Saf Health. May;12(2):101-

16, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724787. 

Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. 

Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology, 

15(4), 279-285. 

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 

Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 

Blomquist, GC, M Dickie, RM O’Conor. 2011. Willingness to pay for improving fatality risks 

and asthma symptoms: Values for children and adults of all ages, Resource and Energy 

Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410-425 

BLS. 2010. Employer costs for employee compensation, Historical listing, Table 1. 

Management, professional and related occupations. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf. 

BLS. 2008. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrci.htm

BLS. 2007a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation- December 2007. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03122008.pdf

BLS. 2007b. Employment Cost Index- December 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/eci_01312008.pdf

BLS. 2007c. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_nat.htm

BLS. 2007d. Occupational Employment Statistics NAICS 999200 - State Government, 

excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm. 
*** 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 Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and 

TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and 

after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect. 

113 12 1802-1807. 

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB 

Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2009. 

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children 

Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental 

Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331-49. 

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, BC Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M 

Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, and TE McKone. 2007. Pesticides and their 

metabolites in the homes and urine of farmworker children living in Salinas Valley. J. 

Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiology 17 (4) 331-349, 

Bradman, A, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003. 

Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker 

of prenatal exposure: A valadation study. Environ. Health Perspect. 111,14 1779-1782 

Bradman MA, ME Harnly, W Draper, S Seidel, S Teran, and D Wakeham. 1997. “Pesticide 

Exposures to Children from California's Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo 

Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234. 

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 

Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 

Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B 

Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 

2009. Meeting report: consensus statement-Parkinson's disease and the environment: 

collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 

PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 117–121 

Calabro, K, K Bright, and K Kouzekanani. 2000. Long-term Effectiveness of Infection Control 

Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, 

(2000): 1-7. 

Calvert GM, WA Alarcon, A Chelminski, MS Crowley, R Barrett, A Correa, S Higgins, H Leon, 

J Correia, A Becker, R Allen, and E Evans. 2007. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers 

Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place—

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 pesticide-related illnesses among working youths, 

1988-1999. Am J Public Health, 93:605-610. 

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L 

Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(12): 883-898. 

Cameron, TA, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnon. 2009. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk 

Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness, working paper, June 2009. 

http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/vita/Cameron_DeShazo_Johnson_0619091.pdf. 

CDC. 2011. Vital Signs, Asthma in the US. Centers for Disease Control, May. 

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/index.html

CDC. 2012. United States Cancer Statistics, 2012. Centers for Disease Control. At 

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2012. 

CDC. 2012. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Includes: Chronic Bronchitis 

and Emphysema. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/copd.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012. 

CDC. 2012b. Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self-Management 

Education – United States, 2001 - 2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

60(17);547-552. Centers for Disease Control, May 6. At 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm

Census Bureau. 2006. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2006: NAICS 115112 - Soil Preparation, 

Planting, and Cultivating, United States. U.S. Census Bureau, at 

https://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2006/us/US115112.HTM. 

Centers for Disease Control, National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), United States 

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance, 

Subpart A – Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, at 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13. 

Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 

396-400. 

Cherlor Manufacturing Company, Inc. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.cherlor.com. 

Accessed May 8, 2008. 

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 Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male 

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 

118(1):92-6. 

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS Felknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and MS Vela Acosta. 

2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmworker Adolescent Populations: Implications 

for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep. 120(6): 622–629, Nov–Dec. 

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and 

exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142-147. 

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work-Related 

Pesticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center. Available here, with more 

recent data available in the docket: 

http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/OccupationalHealth/OccupationalHealth

Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011. 

CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State 

University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/. 

Curl CL, RA Fenske, JC Kissel, JH Shirai, TF Moate, W Griffith, et al. 2002. Evaluation of 

take-home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their 

children. Environ Health Perspect 110:A787-792. 

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 

2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, .J Occup Environ Hyg. 

2(7):357-67, July. 

Curwin, B, W Sanderson, S Reynolds, M Hein, and M Alavanja. 2002. Pesticide use and 

practices in an Iowa farm family pesticide exposure study. J Agric Saf Health, 8:423-33. 

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 

MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315 

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 

migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312. 

Davis, S, et. al. 2006. Letter to Administrator Steve Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency. 

Farmworker Justice. December 15. 

Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain 

development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology-Paris 

Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279-286. 

Dick FD, G De Palma, A Ahmadi, NW Scott, GJ Prescott, J Bennett, et al. 2007. 

Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism: the Geoparkinson 

study. Occup Environ Med. 64(10):666–672. 

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and 

Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9, Office of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

227 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Duffy, M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension 

and Outreach publication FM-1712, revised January. 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf. 

D&B. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. 

http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 

Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 

performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 

pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 165(12):1397-404. Epub 2007 Apr 3. 

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/pages/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 Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf. 

EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal 

Standards. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327-

0024; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. 

What Employers Need to Know. EPA/735-B-06-002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005, 

Reprinted June 2006. 

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposure, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2002. At 

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis. Office of 

Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 8. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0046-0013.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

228 

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 

123(7):1657-63 Oct 1. 

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT 

Holland. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and fetal 

growth and length of gestation in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect. 

112:1116–1124 

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in 

young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798. 

Furman, J. 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final 

Report. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: Division of Occupational 

Health and Safety. December. At 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Report07_F

inal_010407.pdf. 

Gaylord Entertainment Co. 2007. Construction Management Division. Personal 

communication. 

Gempler’s. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com. Accessed 2008. 

Goldman, L, B Eskenazi, A Bradman, and NP Jewell. 2004. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide 

Exposure among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, 

California.” Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-499. 

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362. 

Gorell JM, CC Johnson, BA Rybicki, EL Peterson, and RJ Richardson. 1998. The risk of 

Parkinson’s disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living. 

Neurology. 50:1346–1350. 

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency Shower. 

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARDIAN-EQUIPMENT-Emergency-Shower4HRJ8?Pid=search. Accessed August, 2013. 

Hammitt JK, and J-T Liu. 2004. “Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of 

Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73-95. 

Hancock DB, ER Martin, GM Mayhew, JM Stajich, R Jewett, MA Stacy, et al. 2008. Pesticide 

exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family-based case-control study. BMC 

Neurol. 8:6. 

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic 

exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet 

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April. 

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin 

Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" 

Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

229 

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP 

Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376. 

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007. 

Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am 

J Ind Med 50:969–979. 

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of 

illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 20(11):1449-54, Nov. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641. 

Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers. At 

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 24, 

2011. 

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai. 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag: 

Choice Experiments for Public- and Private-Goods Contexts in Japan, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-07-07-

REV.pdf. 

Jones, A, and L Smith. 2006. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & Worker 

Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 

Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor 

Employees & Aerial Apps. On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop 

Consultants, Certified Crop Advisors. 

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 

Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self-reported 

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364-74. 

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No. 

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June. 

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, CF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, and 

LE Freeman. 2010. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural 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 Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K 

Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, 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 incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098-105. 

Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 

JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and 

Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American 
*** 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 Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 

associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years 

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural 

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov. 

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004a. Cancer incidence 

among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos 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 alachlor in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J 

Epidemiol 159:373–380. 

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide use and 

colorectal cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer 121(2):339-46, Jul 

15. 

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 

Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G 

Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P 

Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair. 

2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public 

Health. 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. 

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman. 2000. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an 

Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home 

Exposure Pathways.” Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302. 

Machlin, SR, and K Carper. 2007. Expenses for Office-Based Physician Visits by Specialty, 

2004. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Statistical Brief #166. At 

http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st166/stat166.pdf. Accessed 

April 29, 2008. 

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. 

Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health 

Perspect, 114:1838-42 

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 

2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 

children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ 

Med. 45:249-258. 
*** 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/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/.

NASS. 2008a. Farm Labor, February 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available here: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2008/FarmLabo-02-15-

2008.pdf. 

NASS. 2008b. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. 

NASS. 2007. Farm Labor, November, 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available here: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2007/FarmLabo-11-16-

2007.pdf. 

NASS. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued June 2004. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. 

NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued March 1999. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php. 

National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National 

Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012. 

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, 

Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011. 

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NIH 

publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure 

in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work 

Environ Health. 31(2):89-96, April. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program. Updated February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program. Updated February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program. February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

232 

Oborain. 2013. Outdoor shower with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/. Accessed 

August, 2013. 

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using 

a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 

16(6), pages 667-683, December. 

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 

OMB. (1996) Economic Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Office of Management and 

Budget. January 11. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide. 

OSHA. 2004. Supporting Statement for the Information-Collection Requirements of the 

Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134). OMB Control No. 1218-0099. Occupational 

Health & Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.osha.gov/Reduction_Act/1218-0099.html#text9. Accessed May 9, 2008). 

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms 

Accessed August 4, 2011. 

Plog, BA. 1996. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. BA Plog, ed. National Safety Council, 

United States, pp 29-30, Fourth Edition. 

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/Migrant-and-Seasonal-Farmworkers-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and-Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sanatana, and L McCauley. 2006. Organophosphate 

exposure and neurobehavioral performance among agricultural and non-agricultural 

Hispanic workers. Environ. Health Persp. 114:691-696. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

233 

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards 

and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159-169. 

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32. 

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory 

symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J. 22(3):507-12, Sept. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143. 

Salazar MK, M Napolitano, JA Scherer, and LA McCauley. 2004. Hispanic adolescent 

farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res. 

26(2):146–166. 

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J López, G Kavanagh-Baird, M Minkler, and 

B Eskenazi. 2009. A Community-Based Participatory Worksite Intervention to Reduce 

Pesticide Exposures to Farmworkers and Their Families. American Journal of Public 

Health S578-S581, Vol 99, No. S3, Nov. 

Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Bassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health 

effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam 

Physician 53(10): 1712-20. 

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning, 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A. 

Smith, R, K Klonsky, and R DeMoura. (2009) Sample costs to produce iceberg lettuce, Central 

Coast Region. University of California Cooperative Extension publication LT-CC-09-2. 

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/lettuceicecc09.pdf. 

Snipes SA, B Thompson, K O'Connor, B Shell-Duncan, D King, AP Herrera, and B Navarro. 

2009. "Pesticides protect the fruit, but not the people": using community-based 

ethnography to understand farmworker pesticide-exposure risks. Am J Public Health

99Suppl 3:S616-21, Nov. 

Spradley, P. 2007. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators. June 7. 

Staples. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.staples.com/. Accessed April, 2008. 

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive 

Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb. 

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 

in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249-

272. 

Strong LL, B Thompson, TD Koepsell, and H Meischke. 2008. Factors associated with 

pesticide safety practices in farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 51(1):69-81, Jan. 

Tanner, CM 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." PLoS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008). 

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a 

systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41. 

Tuthill. 2008. Product and price lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com. Accessed May 

8, 2008. 

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries 

and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2011. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PubMed 

Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/. Accessed September 

20, 2011. 

University of Florida (2008-09) Interactive Budgets, Vegetables. University of Florida. 

http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php. 

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler, 

and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non-smoking farm women in the 

agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American 

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574. 

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is 

pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results. 

Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340. 

Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides 

and childhood leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment 

International. 37(1):280-91, Jan. 

Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data 

Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389-97. 

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural 

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 

Washington State Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health 

Assessments. 2003. Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups about 

Pesticides and Health Care. Available here: 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/focus_group_summary_030922final.

pdf

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in 

human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 11(3-4):242-59, Mar. 

Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555 
*** 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 Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 

Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21. 

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. 

Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: Summary of 

Data Reported and Evaluation (1991). Available here: 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking 

Carbofuran Tolerances. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. EPA. 

Yang, RC, and PK Mills. 2009. Proportionate cancer incidence in the Laotian population of 

California, 1988-2006. Cancer Causes Control. 20(6):1011-6, Aug. 

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center 

Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of 

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92. 

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE 

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209 

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53. 

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1997. Cancer Feasibility Studies Among Migrant Farmworkers, 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32:301–302 (1997). 

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1993. Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers: an 

epidemiologic review and research agenda. Am J Ind Med. 24(6):753-66, Dec. 

Zahm, SH, JS Colt, LS Engel, MC Keifer, AJ Alvarado, K Burau, P Butterfield, S Caldera, SP 

Cooper, D Garcia, C Hanis, E Hendrikson, N Heyer, LM Hunt, M Krauska, N 

MacNaughton, CJ McDonnell, PK Mills, LD Mull, DL Nordstrom, B Outterson, DP 

Slesinger, MA Smith, L Stallones, C Stephens, A Sweeney, K Sweitzer, SW Vernon, and 

A Blair. 2001. Development of a life events/icon calendar questionnaire to ascertain 

occupational histories and other characteristics of migrant farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 

40(5):490-501, Nov. 

Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33. 

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

Suppl 3:893-908, June.