*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

RIN2070-AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_NPRM_EA_Fi nalRedline_AllRe visions_2014-02-19.docx



### Revised to address Interagency Commen ts received under EO 12866 Review.

1 

# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

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

Prepared by

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

............................................................................................................................... ........ 1

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

............. 8

1.1 Background

............................................................................................................................... .... 8

1.2 Problem Statement

....................................................................................................................... 9

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

....................................................................................... 10

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

.................................................................................... 13

1.2.3 Market Failure

..................................................................................................................... 14

1.3 Affected Communities

................................................................................................................ 16

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

....................................................................................................... 16

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

.............................................................................................................. 17

1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

.............................................................................................. 18

1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

............................................................................................... 19

1.4.2 Statutory Authority

............................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

............................................................................. 21

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

......................................................... 22

2.1.1 Non

‐ regulatory Approaches

................................................................................................ 22

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

....................................................................................................... 23

2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

............................................... 24

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

....................................................................................... 24

2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

......................................................................................... 33

2.2.3 Notification Options

............................................................................................................ 36

2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

.................................................................. 44

2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

........................................................................................................ 44

2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

............................................................................................. 45

2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

....................................................................... 49

2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

............................................................... 51

2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

....................................................................................... 51

2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

....................................................................................... 54

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

............................................................................................ 56

3.1 Overview

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

3 3.2. Regional Groupings

..................................................................................................................... 57

3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

.................................................................................................. 59

3.3.1 General Methodology

......................................................................................................... 59

3.3.2 General Data

....................................................................................................................... 62

3.3.3 Training

............................................................................................................................... 70

3.3.4 Hazard Communication....................................................................................................... 86

3.3.5 Notification

......................................................................................................................... 91

3.3.5 Age

............................................................................................................................... ....... 98

3.3.6 Entry

............................................................................................................................... ... 102

3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

............................................................................... 107

3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

................................................................................................ 112

3.3.9 Emergency Response

........................................................................................................ 114

Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

...................................................................... 116

4.1 Training Options

........................................................................................................................ 117

4.1.1 TRAIN

‐ 01 vs TRAIN

‐ 02: Immediate worker training

......................................................... 117

4.1.2 TRAIN

‐ 03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN

‐ 12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and handler training

.... 118

4.1.3 TRAIN

‐ 06 vs 07 / TRAIN

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

. 119

4.1.4 TRAIN

‐ 08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards

.................................... 119

4.1.5 TRAIN

‐ 10 vs 11 / TRAIN

‐ 16 vs 17: Record keeping

.......................................................... 120

4.1.6 TRAIN

‐ 20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification

................................................................... 120

4.2 Hazard Communication Options

............................................................................................... 121

4.2.1 HAZCOM

‐ 01: Availability of application

‐ specific information

.......................................... 121

4.2.2 HAZCOM

‐ 02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide

‐ specific Hazard Communication Materials............ 122

4.2.3 HAZCOM

‐ 05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention

.......................................................... 122

4.2.4 HAZCOM

‐ 07: Registrant

‐ produced crop sheets

................................................................ 123

4.3 Notification Options

.................................................................................................................. 123

4.3.1 NOTIFY

‐ 01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

........................... 123

4.3.2 NOTIFY

‐ 03: Posted Notification Timing

– Enclosed Space Production

............................. 124

4.3.3 NOTIFY

‐ 04 and NOTIFY

‐ 05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification

....................................... 124

4.3.4 NOTIFY

‐ 06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

....................................................................... 124

4.3.4 NOTIFY

‐ 08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

.................................................................... 125

4.3.6 NOTIFY

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

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

4 4.3.7 NOTIFY

‐ 12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

.................................................... 125

4.3.8 NOTIFY

‐ 14: Revise safety display

..................................................................................... 126

4.3.9 NOTIFY

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

.................................. 126

4.3.10 NOTIFY

‐ 18: Notification by commercial applicators

........................................................ 127

4.4 Age Requirement Options

......................................................................................................... 127

4.4.1 AGE

‐ 01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities

..................................................... 127

4.4.2 AGE

‐ 03 vs AGE

‐ 04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides

.............................. 128

4.5 Entry Restriction Options

.......................................................................................................... 128

4.5.1 ENTRY

‐ 01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

......................................................................... 128

4.5.2 ENTRY

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

.............................................. 129

4.5.3 ENTRY

‐ 06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

...................................................................... 130

4.6 PPE Options

............................................................................................................................... 130

4.6.1 PPE

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

............... 130

4.6.2 PPE

‐ 02 and PPE

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

. 131

4.6.3 PPE

‐ 04: Standards for closed system exceptions

............................................................. 131

4.6.4 PPE

‐ 05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable

.............................................................. 132

4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

............................................................................................. 132

4.7.1 SUPPLY

‐ 01 and SUPPLY

‐ 02: Decontamination supplies for workers

............................... 132

4.7.2 SUPPLY

‐ 03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers

.............................................. 133

4.7.3 SUPPLY

‐ 05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing

....................................................................... 134

4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

................................................................................................. 134

Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

........................................................................................................... 136

5.1 General Methodology

............................................................................................................... 138

5.2 Cost Estimation

......................................................................................................................... 142

5.2.1 Training Component

......................................................................................................... 142

5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

.................................................... 152

5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

........................................................................ 155

5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance

................ 157

5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

.............................................................................................. 159

5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

.............................................................................................. 163

5.4 Small Business Impacts

............................................................................................................. 164

5.4.1 Industry Profile

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

5 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

......................................................................... 167

Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

...................................................................................................... 170

6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

............................................................................................ 171

6.2. Who is at Risk?

.......................................................................................................................... 172

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

................................................................................... 172

6.2.2. Children and families

........................................................................................................ 172

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

................................. 175

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

............................................................................................. 175

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

................................ 176

6.4. Non

‐ Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

.................................. 180

6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

............................................ 181

6.5.1. Methodology and Data

..................................................................................................... 181

6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

................................................................... 182

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

.............................................................................................. 187

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

............................................................................................... 190

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

............. 201

6.6.1. Cancer Risks

...................................................................................................................... 204

6.6.2. Non

‐ Cancer Health Effects

................................................................................................ 207

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

.......................................................................... 209

6.7. Non

‐ Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

.................................................. 209

6.8. Break

‐ Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

............................................. 210

6.8.1. Background

....................................................................................................................... 210

6.8.2. Method

............................................................................................................................. 212

6.8.3. Data

............................................................................................................................... .... 214

6.8.4. Break

‐ Even Estimation

...................................................................................................... 218

6.8.5. Break

‐ Even Conclusions

.................................................................................................... 222

Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden

................................................................................................................. 224

Accounting Statement

.............................................................................................................................. 225

References

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

1 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TH E PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Executive Summary

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS to meet the requirements of Executive Orde r 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business es Regulatory Enforcemen t Fairness Act. The

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

Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherently risky. Between 2000 and 2009, an average of 2,170 occupational pesticide incidents was reported annually to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, of which over 1,200 occurred on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. The true number of occupational accidents is likely to be significantly more due to lack of reporting. Acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects such as headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness. In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. Occupational incidents are probably indicative of a larger number of cases where pes ticide safety practices are not fully followed resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, and possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and risk management. Even such minor errors are likely to lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, which is associated with long-term health issues that are potentially severe, including neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several forms of cancer.



### Market Failure

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: incomplete asymmetric information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not av ailable to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions; this may result in unintended or undesirable amounts or kinds of use for a given pesticide that result in negative consequences for society and/or the environment. If the market fails to provide incentives to develop and dissem inate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure.

In conjunction with various non-regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to work ers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2 to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoi dable pesticide exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is proposing a set of requirements that, in combination, are expected to achieve substantial benefits

at minimum cost.



### Costs and Benefits

EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $ 6 1.9 62.1 and
$72. 4 9 million annually, using a three percent discount rate. Using a seven percent discount rate,
the rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 0.8 61.2 and $73. 1 6 million per year. These The majority

of the costs , $59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are almost entirely borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United States. The approximately 2,800 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost
between $ 170 2.4 and $ 190 2.5 million per year per firm

. Minor costs of less than $60 to $80 per year may be faced by family . Family farms

, i.e. , not hiring labor, that use pesticides and by self

employed commercial applicators , respectively . These may collectively bear costs of about $100,000 per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to pesticides, will accrue to a broader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in terms of avoided costs associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reduct ions in chronic diseas es associated with occupational pesticide exposure. Costs and benefits are summarized in Table 1.

Estimates of the total incremental costs are considered an upper bound, primarily because of the assumption that all requirements are applicable to all farms and farmworkers even though the WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor. Much of U.S. agricultural labor is mechanized. EPA includes 153,000 farms primarily engaged in livestock operations in this analysis. Associated crop production is likel y to include forage crops or field crops like grain and oilseeds that are highly mechanized. Since they do not involve hand labor activities, employers and employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only handler requirements would apply. If the livestock operations are responsible only for handler requirements, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to
$ 58.8 59.2 million per year.

Costs

Key conclusions from the cost analysis are presented in Table 1. Most of the impacts of the revisions to the WPS will be felt by the 395,000 U.S. farms that hire labor. The cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA estimates that large farms, defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average about 20 employees , will incur costs of $ 3 3 0 340 to $ 390 400 per year, on average, using a 3% discount rate. Smaller operations that average two to three workers are estimated to incur costs between*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

3 $ 1 25 130 and $150 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Around 3,000 family farms may be impacted by the proposed standards for closed mixing and loading systems with annualized costs of less than $60 per year, although this figure masks the fact that some farms may choose to invest in new equipment. Co mmercial pesticide handlin g establishments may incur costs of $170 to $190 per year.

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard Farms Hiring Labor Family Farms Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments Number Impacted 395,000 3,200 2,800

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

Per-Establishment Large farms $350-410
Small farms $130-150 $35 $170-190

Small Business Impacts No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are contracted to apply pesticides.

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

average small entity.

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

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

$5/year.

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

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

The marginal increase in cost per field worker is estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on employment. The marginal increase in cost per pesticide handler employed on a farm is estimated to be less than $60 per year, which represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact on job availability.

Benefits

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

, to their families. For workers and handlers, the revised rule is expected to substantially reduce the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to pesticides, and provide them with information and tools to reduce the transport of pesticide residues home

. to their homes. Self-employed pesticide handlers, including members of farm families who apply pesticides, will also benefit from reductions in pesticide

exposures.

It is difficult to quantify a specif ic level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to such a wide range of pesticides Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.05", Hanging: 0.13", Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.32" + Indent at: 0.57", Keep with next

Formatted: Don't keep with next Formatted: Font color: Auto*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

4 with different toxicities and risks. However, the proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides ; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peerreviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticid e exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness.

Benefits from Avoiding Occupational Acute Incidents

Given reported cases, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide incidents where the WPS applies would have been prevented by the rule. The value of avoided medical and productivity

losses of this reduction in incidents is estimate d to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million annually

. , based on the number of reported cases. However, this estimate is biased downward by an unknown, but potentially significant degree. Fi rst, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database. The effect of underreporting can be significant. If we assume only 20 - 25% of poisonings are reported (within and adjust the range benefits to account for this level of estimates

in under-reporting, then the literature), low-end estimate for the quantifi able benefits of the rule
would be about $ 11.3 5 million annually and the high-end estimate would be about $14 million/year . Second, our approach only measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. These benefits are summarized in Table 2.

EPA is not able Table 2. Acute Benefits from Revisions to provide quantitative estimates of

the benefits from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides, but there are well

- documented

associations betw een pesticide exposure and chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed

literature. Overall, the Worker Protection Standard Category Description Comments

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents  $5 – 14 million/year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide

incidents.

 $1.2 – 2.8 million/year

without adjustment.  Cost of illness and reduced productivity.

 Accounts for underreporting.

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

 Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

The weight of evidence suggests that a reduction in pesticide exposure through the proposed rule requirements will result in long term health bene fits to the 2.3 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illness, resulting in a lower cost of healthcare, a healthier society and better quality of life. are expected to accrue through lower expenditure on healthcare due to a reduced burden of chronic illness in the population. EPA also anticipates there will be benefits such as a healthier society and improved qualit y of life for agricultural workers, pesticide Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Black*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

5 handlers and their families through this rule. However, neither the benefits of reduced chronic disease burden due to reduced pesticide exposure nor the intangible benefit of improved quality of life can be quantified at this time.

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

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

statistical associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. For example, epidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoietic tumors, lung and prostate cancers as well as neurological effects such as Parkinson’s disease, among others. However, the current state of scientific research concerning the possible association between pesticide exposure and these chronic diseases is such that it would be premature at this time to conclude that there is a causal link between pesticide exposures and the chronic disease outcomes, or if there is a causal link, the data are insufficient to establish a dose-response relationship. As a consequence, it is not possible to directly quantify all of the benefits expected to result from reducing agricultural pesticide exposures expected. However, the totality of reported epidemiological findings suggests that the long term health of agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule. Therefore, EPA has estimated the minimum number of cases of chronic disease outcomes which, if avoided, would equal the

total cost of the rule , $75.1 ( i.e. , the “break-even” analysis).

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

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family members or health care professionals. Using the break-even analysis described in Section 6.8., if the proposed rule prevents only a very small number of chronic illnesses, it could have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis indicates that a reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million per year, and the estimated benefits from avoiding acute incidents, $11.4 million per year, is $63.7 million per year. workers is all that would be required to ensure the totality of benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS revisions. Including only six diseases in the break-even analysis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of six just

those chronic diseases , ranging from asthma to cancer, shown in Table 3 by only 0.8 percent within the farmworker community is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic

illness that would be sufficient to generate total benefits equal to the cost of the rule , given estimates of willingness to pay to avoid representative diseases . In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides show higher incidence rates of th ese certain chronic diseases than similar populations the general population with little or no chronic exposure to pesticides. Thus, the slight decrease in total incidence rates is a plausible outcome of revisions to the WPS, which include among other things improved worker safety training, better d issemination of information about pesticides used on

- farm, and greater protection from inadvertent exposures such as spray drift or inadequate protective equipment. the proposed revisions to the WPS.

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

Category Description Comment

Qualitative benefits A range of illnesses are associated with Break-even analysis for*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

6 from reduced effects of chronic pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and

farmworker families chronic pesticide exposure, including

 Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

 Prostate Cancer

 Parkinson’s Disease

 Lung Cancer

 Chronic Bronchitis

 Asthma only these illnesses shows that, if the proposed rule changes prevent a relatively small number of cases, then the

total benefits of the rule would outweigh the

costs.

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

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 $6 2

– 7 2 million/year

Small Business Impacts No significant impact on a subs tantial number of small entities.

 The rule will affect over 30 0,000 small farms, nurseries, and

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are contracted to apply pesticides.

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

the average small entity

.

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

 The marginal cost of a typical far mworker is expected to increase

$5/year.

 The marginal cost for a more ski lled 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. Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.05", Hanging: 0.13", Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.32" + Indent at: 0.57", Keep with next

Formatted: Don't keep with next

Formatted: Font color: Auto*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

8 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TH E PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Chapter 1. Introduction

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The proposed revisions are expected to reduce the risks to workers and handlers from occupational pesticide exposure, and protect farm worker children and other family members from take-home pesticide exposure. The proposed changes represent revisions to the worker protection rule that

was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992.

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS as well as for alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal. This section provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal and the statutory authority for the rule, and identifi es entities that may be affected by the rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA co nsidered in developing this proposal and discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options. Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the regulatory options. Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements. Chapters 5 and 6 then examine the proposed requirements as a single unit. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposal, taking into account any interactions between the proposed requirements. The ultimate outcome of the rule, in terms avoided adverse health effects resulting from reduced accidental and chro nic exposures to pesticides, which will accrue primarily to agricultural employees and their families, are described in Chapter 6.

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by th e Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The remaining regu latory requirements and a full description of the regulatory options EPA is considering in this proposal are addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of this rule. This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in preparing an analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501-21).



### 1.1 Background

The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary regulations. The Certification of Pesticide A pplicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, requires applicators to meet certain competency requirements before they can purchase, use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking. The Worker Protection Standard regulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide handler employers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers when pesticides are used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

9 agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, th e WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, agricultural employees, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as children. This economic analysis focuses on the WPS rule.

The WPS rule is directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees, which, throughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those employees who handle agricultural pesticides (mixing, loading, applying pesticides, and performing other activities linked to pesticide application). These employees may be directlyexposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and nontarget organisms. In principle, at least, pes ticide handlers also know with which chemicals they work and have access to label information that explains precautions and provides directions for use. Workers are employees who perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. Workers are potentially exposed to pesticides through contact with treated plants, residues left on other surfaces, or through the air or water on the farm or other operation. On their own, workers may have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be exposed or even if they are exposed.

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

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

exposures.



### 1.2 Problem Statement

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

10 on occupational exposures (SENSOR-Pesticides, described in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates that about 57 percent of reported occupational cases occurred on establishments where WPS requirements apply. If that rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually would be reported from WPS establishments. Although the number of cases was generally trending down over this period, there remain a substantial number of incidents. Many of these poisonings are avoidable and it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of exposures when they occur. Moreover, incidents are likely to reflect a larger number of cases where employers or employees fail to follow label instru ction or make mistakes in applications, much like traffic accidents at intersections likely reflect the common practice of rolling through stop signs. But while rolling through a stop sign increas es the probability of an accident, lax pesticide safety practices result in higher levels of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, and possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearly defined incident. These minor errors are also likely to lead to more chronic exposure to pesticides.



### 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

Use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, and workers and handlers can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). Some exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from

mild skin irritation to more severe effects. Exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Some pesticides can cause in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the many diverse symptoms that can be caused by pesticide exposure; Reigart and Robe rts (1999) list almost 100 different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure.

While illnesses resulting from pesticide exposu res to workers and hand lers are underreported (see the discussion in Section 6.5.1), there ar e peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. Calvert, et al . (2008), for example, looked at reported pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but foragricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for nonagricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farm workers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide

related illness cases in the Califor nia surveillance system were ag ricultural workers. Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

11 Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees

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

Research has shown that agricultural workers’ pe rceptions about pesticide safety can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., (2009) conducted interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions or practices that might lead to takehome exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and farmworkers were delayed washing their hands and bodies immediately after work. Quandt et al . (1998) found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target and that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). In reality, other exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures may be particularly important for long-term development effects in children. Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer windows of opportunity for chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. At various development st ages, humans metabolize chemicals differently, such that chemical exposures have more or less effect at different ages.

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

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

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different pesticides in the homes of 20 farmworker chil dren in the Salinas Valley of California, and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 nonfarm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found significantly higher levels of atrazine and metola chlor (which only have agricultural uses) in

farm households. The distribution of the sa mples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the worker’s changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported home on farmer’s clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the takehome exposure pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate the takehome exposure is an important source of exposure for children. Studies cited by Vida et al. (2007) consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the agricultural households and that levels of OP residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest levels of azinphos-methyl, for example were associated with thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004,

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

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

Adolescent workers and handlers

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

There is evidence that adolescents do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do that make exposure to pesticides more likely. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institu te for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward , and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan

et al. , 2010).

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, teens knew of the risk associated with pestic ide exposure; however, varying opinions existed among the group relating to individual susceptibility, and responses indicated a somewhat cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al ., 2004).

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning survei llance data shows that working youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity (Calvert

et al. , 2003). The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. In economic terms, adolescents behave as if they have extremely high discount

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

Children and adolescents are still going through important developmental changes, and pesticide exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems. Although adolescents are more fully developed than younger children, there are still important development processes con tinuing. In particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination (important physiological process that reduce the excess neuron connections in the brain and enclosing individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase the efficiency of information processing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). Th ese changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). In addition, the earlier occupational e xposure gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves over a full lifetime.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

13 

### 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

In addition to the effects of acute exposure mentioned above, workers and handlers face risks from chronic exposure to pesticides, as well. Although the children and families may suffer illness from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for this group is exposure to low levels of pesticides over a longer period of time, either from the agricultural environment or in the home, where pesticides have been transported on the clothes of workers and handlers. There are a broad range of illnesses with a relationship to this type of chronic exposure.

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure to pregnant women may have particularly important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et
al . (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother and future childhood leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker durin g windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy.

While only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer-review bodies, there is a wide lite rature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausi bility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only identified two classes of pesticides to be carci nogens (some arsenical insecticides and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arseni cal pesticides as possible human carcinogens. However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and

cancer.

Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic po tential of pesticide ex posure, review articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in

association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et
al ., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al

., 2010 2010a ; Van Maele et al ., 2011, Wigle et al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013).

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

14 Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al ., 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009).



### 1.2.3 Market Failure

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: incomplete asymmetric information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not av ailable to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, there may be a social ly undesirable amount or kind of use. If the market fails to provide incentives to develop an d disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure. This intervention must adapt to changes in industry and, especially, to the advancements of scientific knowledge about the risks of pesticide exposure.

In complete Asymmetric Information

Incomplete Asymmetric information may be the most critical problem leading to avoidable pesticide exposure. Handlers working directly with pesticides and agricultural workers on farms where pesticides are used may not have complete information about the occupational risks they face or the potential consequences to their familie s if pesticide residues are transported to the

home. Incomplete Asymmetric information arises in two ways.

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the information if not provided by the employer . Many who are employed in agriculture, for example, are not native English speakers; an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees do not speak English (US Department of Labor, 2005). Many are migrant laborers who could lack access to sources of information, such as familiar extension agents, because they are frequently away from home, but many workers may not have access, especially internet access, to convenient, reliable information (US Department of Labor, 2005). These barriers result in high search costs that can deter agricultural workers and handlers from obtaining information on their own. Finally, information regarding pesticides and pesticide use may not be available to the employee in the time frame that is required to take appropriate action.

Second, there may not be incentives for workers and handlers to seek out information about pesticides. Symptoms of pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, or other factors, especially for workers who may not even be aware that they have been in contact with pesticides or in pesticide-treated ar eas. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and employees may not be motivated to learn more about the risks they face given more immediate job requirements. These issues can result*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

15 in workers and handlers with insufficient info rmation to make informed choices about their safety.

Externalities

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pesticide exposure is that the party making the application decision does not bear all of the nega tive effects of a pesticide application, including the health effects on others. This is a classic externality that can result in a divergence between the social and private costs of using a pesticide.

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

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections

Another concern is the presence of institutional constraints. EPA last revised the WPS requirements in 1992. Some existing requirements have proven to be vague or open to differing interpretations leading to regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, society’s understanding of exposure and risk has evolved and regulatory requirements are most useful when they reflect current knowledge.

Environmental Justice Issues

There are several reasons that environmental just ice considerations are especially important for the agricultural employees covered by the WPS.

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

 Language barriers and challenges for this workforce make it difficult for workers and handlers to participate in making decisions about the risks they face as they perform their jobs.

 Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than nonagricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure, because their body systems are still developing. Poverty, poor nutrition and lack of access to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

16  The cumulative effects of occupational pesticide exposure can have long term impacts on the health of worker and handler communities. See Section 1.2.2. These potential effects are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6.

According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), in 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005), 75 percent of farmworkers were born in Mexico. Twenty three percent were born in the U.S., with a small percentage born in other countries. Eighty one percent of the community speaks Spanish as a native language, with a growing percentage speaking other languages such as Creole, or Mixteco. Forty-four percent of workers could not speak English “at all” and 53 percent could not read English “at all,” and many workers have received minimal formal education. The NAWS reports that, in 2001-2002, most foreign-born workers completed the sixth grade, whereas most US-born workers completed the eleventh grade. Forty three percent traveled at least 75 miles in the previous year to find an agricultural job, and are therefore defined as migrant, posing challenges for effective outreach. Twenty one percent live in housing provided by their employer, with 58 percent living in housing rented from someone else. The NAWS (DoL, 2005) found that crop workers’ average annual income was between $10,000 and $12,499, with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499. Thirty percent of surveyed workers had family incomes below the poverty level.



### 1.3 Affected Communities

The primary entities that will be impacted by th e proposed changes to the WPS are agricultural employees and their families, agricultural establis hments (which include farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural plants and hire workers or handlers, and commercial pesticide handling esta blishments (CPHEs). Other affected entities include family farms that use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop advisory services. Under the proposed revisions , state agencies are expected to incur only

minimal costs associated with th e revision of these regulations.



### 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

WPS offers protections to as many as 2.3 millio n agricultural employee s (NASS, 2008b). The current rule is intended to protect workers and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most workers in forestry would generally not be at substantially more risk than the general public due to pesticide use pa tterns in forestry.

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year. According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), over 300,000 farms employing over 2.0 million workers used pesticides in 2007. EPA estimates that within the farmworker population are almost 250,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load pesticides and assist with application as well as those who apply pesticides. Over several years, however, it is likely that nearly all 395,000 agri cultural establishments that hire labor will use pesticides, thus all agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of adverse health effects. Formatted: Font color: Auto*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

17 However, many farm workers are not engaged in hand labor activities and the potential for exposure is quite low.

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the proposed rule through provisions that would require agricultural empl oyers to provide information to workers and handlers about risks from pesticides and ways they can minimize their exposure, to provide warnings about treated areas, to provide protec tive measures such as personal protective equipment, and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural pesticides. The costs of the proposed rule are not generally expected to fall directly on workers

and handlers.



### 1.3.2 Regulated Entities

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were over 2.2 million agricultural establishments in the United States. Another 10,000 commercial establishments do business such as providing contract services for pest control (Census Bureau, 2006). The WPS covers a subset of agricultural establishments involved in plant agriculture. These include farms, livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations. An agricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and employs any worker or handler. The WPS also covers self-employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies pesticides.

For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish tw o types of establishments affected by the rule: (1) farms, including livestock operations that produce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). Within each type, we further distinguish between those who are self-employed ( e.g. , the family farm) and those who employ others. Farms that use pesticides and hire labor bear most of the cost of the proposed changes to the WPS. The major sources of impact will be in additional labor cost to account for time spent in training and in giving and receiving information.

Agricultural Establishments

According to the 2007 Ce nsus of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States, of which over 1.5 million are involved in plant agriculture. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture and determined that 788,582 agricultural establishments producing crops used pesticides in 2007. Of those, 304,348 farms also hired labor, leaving 484,234 family farms that used pesticides in 2007. Those family farms, however, are exempt from most provisions of the WPS. Family farms benefit from the WPS because it provides several exceptions or alternatives to pesticide label requirements incl uding permission to enter treated fields during the Restricted Entry Interval (REI) under certain conditions. The WPS also sets standards for engineering controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for personal protective equipment (PPE).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

18 The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily a ffect the establishments that use pesticides and hire labor such as the 304,348 farms identified in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms hiring labo r, 394,658, as the likely universe of farms covered by WPS requirements (NASS, 2008b). For convenience, throughout this document, we refer to the farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor as “WPS farms.” The use of all farms hiring labor may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic growers, however many organic producers also have conve ntionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to WPS standards of safety. The number of these farms actually using pesticides in any given year, as indicated by the 2007 Census, will be important for many of the requirements.

Similar information on the number of entities us ing pesticides for forestry operations is not available. However, WPS requirements do not apply when treated areas are removed from areas where workers are employed. Given forest production practices, pesticide applications and worker activities are commonly quite distinct and so WPS requirements would rarely impact forestry operations.

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

The number of commercial pesticide handling establishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Statistics (BLS, 2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms. About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed under the NAICS code 115112 (S oil preparation, planting, and cultivating). In order to determine the number of firms that would qualify as commercial pesticide handling establishments as defined by the WPS, EPA determ ined that only the 1,231 firms which reported hiring at least one employee with the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions: crop spraying services, crop diseas e control services, crop protecting services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting) would be defined as CPHEs under WPS. EPA also estimates that there are 1,562 aerial applicators covered by the WPS, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008).

EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial applicators certified for plant production, that there are nearly 87,000 self-employed handlers providing commercial services to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007).



### 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

EPA is proposing requirements to address the problems arising from inadequate information and externalities, to clarify required actions, and to reflect current knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses the proposed requirements, as well as alternative requirements, in more detail. For this analysis, EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

19 Three categories primarily address the issue of incomplete information. Training requirements are designed to provide general information to employees where an important aspect of the pesticide safety training is to provide workers and handlers with information about the risks of pesticides and steps they can take to minimize their exposure. Hazard Communication and

Notification requirements are designed to provide timely application-specific information. These proposed requirements would mean that agricultur al workers receive the information they need when they need it.

Three categories address the externality issue and provide protections to employees working with pesticides. Age restrictions are meant to protect adol escents, whose developing systems may be more susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescen ts may also be less able to judge the potential risks of exposure, especially the long-term effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are designed to reduce the possible adverse effects on workers who are in proximity either in time or space to a pesticide application. Requireme nts for personal protective equipment (PPE) are intended to provide handlers with protection from pesticide exposure during handling tasks.

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



### 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

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

be revised.

First, there are efficiency gains for state and lo cal agencies responsible for implementing worker protection standards. Many states rely on the fe deral standards because data on pesticide effects are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and the duplication of effort. Thus, while states have the authority to issue their own regulations, they may lack the resources to individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise protection standards.

There are also potential efficiency gains for agri cultural establishments when there is greater consistency in worker protection requirements across states. Many workers migrate through the agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at different times. If worker protection standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, workers may be confused about their rights and regulatory protections. Additionally , agricultural employers and farm managers or supervisors who cross state boundaries may inad vertently be out of compliance if regulatory requirements are inconsistent. Further, if di fferent states imposed different requirements, workers who cross state boundaries may be confus ed about their rights and responsibilities. Different notification requirements, in particular , that might present information in different ways, would be particularly confusing.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

20 There may also be efficiency gains in establishing consistent training requirements. Federal requirements for training standards can ease the burden of developing programs for individual

entities.



### 1.4.2 Statutory Authority

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 established a framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136 et. seq .) broadened federal pesticide regulatory authority to make it “unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” (7 USC 136i(a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 USC 136l) and au thorized the Administrator to provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 USC 136w(a)). The new and revised provisions directed EPA to protect humans and the envi ronment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

21 

## Chapter 2. Regulatory Op tions for Amending the WPS

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to improve the protections for agricultural workers, handlers and their families. The WPS establishes requirements to inform agricu ltural workers and handlers that they may encounter pesticides either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, loading and applying pesticides. Broadly speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and handlers about the pesticides th ey use or to which they come into contact, (2) protect workers

and handlers from the adverse ef fects of pesticides, and (3) m itigate the adverse effects of

exposure.

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the WPS, as well as alternative options considered by EPA. The discussion provides a general overview of each potential change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 170 provides the actual regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not discussed. The NPRM for the proposed rule presents additional detail on the proposed changes and the alternatives considered, including some addi tional alternatives not considered here that were rejected for reasons such as practicality and enforceability. The discussion in this chapter focuses on the benefits of the proposals and alternative options. Chapter 3 estimates the costs each would impose and Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits.

The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been established to improve worker safety. The remainder of the chapter is organized according to the ways the proposals will improve worker safety ( i.e. , to inform workers, protect against exposure, or mitigate the effects of exposure). For each of these three broad elements, the individual line items that make up the regulatory options are discus sed. Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the changes that will better inform workers and ha ndlers about protecting themselves from pesticide exposure, which comprise three categories, training, hazard communication, and notification. The provisions that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in Section 2.3 and are divided into three categories, age requirements, restrictions on entry into a treated area, and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to protect against exposure. The final section, 2.4, addresse s changes to the WPS that will mitigate the adverse effects of contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response requirements. Please refer to the NPRM for the WPS revisions for a complete discussion of the regulatory options considered under this rulemaking proposal and the rationale for the Agency’s selection of the final proposed options.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

22 

### 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

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

 protections for agricultural labor through th e agricultural worker protection regulation and support activities;

 the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide applicators; and

 the national health care providers’ pesticide initiative.



### 2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches

In addition to the regulatory changes that EPA is proposing, the Agency engages in extensive non-regulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, handlers, their families and the public from pesticide exposure and potential injury. To implement these programs, the Office of Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of partners including state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); university cooperative extension services; fa rmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated community.

EPA funds pesticide safety education and outreach, and regulatory support activities through grants with governmental and non-governmental organizations with the goal of improving the health of workers, handlers, applicators, the public, and the environment. For example, EPA has a grant with National Association of State De partments of Agriculture-Research Foundation (NASDA-RF) to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to reduce pesticide exposure risks in pesticide worker and other affected populations. Regionally, nationally, and internationally, NASDA-RF, in co llaboration with EPA, works with a variety of partners (community-based organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care providers, regulators, subject matter experts, agri cultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop creative comm unity-based action plan s to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including: workshops, hands-on training, fact sheets, manuals, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars.

EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (C DC) National Institute fo r Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notifica tion System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those experienced by farmworkers. These data have been useful in characterizing the benefits of these rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6.

EPA has also participated in the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), which collects demographic, health, and working condition information from farmworkers and handlers. These data are useful to direct the development of materials in appropriate languages and complexity.

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

23 with USDA to support the training of applicator s using RUPs through the cooperative extension

services in each state.

A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national health care providers pesticide initiative, aimed at improving the traini ng of health care provid ers in the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pes ticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the development of a manual for h ealth care providers called “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning.” This resour ce outlines the health effects a ssociated with different classes of pesticides and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinic ians Network, which operates a project to improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and treat pesticide-related conditions. This project includes the development of relevant resources and tools that health care providers need to d eal effectively with pesticide-related health conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and continuing education opportunities.

The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS are designed to complement EPA’s pesticide worker safety program activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and their families. In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the process of consulting with stakeholders and indus try participants on how to improve pesticide worker safety.



### 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

Approval of a new or amended pesticide registration for sale and use implies EPA approval of the pesticide label. By law, use of a pesticid e must not result in unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. It is illegal to us e any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to esta blish and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide exposure. The label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency’s risk assessments, including occupational risk assessments.

The label, however, is not available to the typical farmworker, because they are not involved in the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated surfaces after the application has been completed. The WPS complements the label by providing protections from this post-application exposure. It established requirements on the employer to notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables workers and handlers to protect themselves and th eir families, to provide supplies to be used to mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and consistently covered in regulation.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

24 

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

EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training, hazard communication, and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers related to pesticide exposure. These measures wo rk together to provide workers with important information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions. Changes to the pesticide safe ty training requirements will increase worker and handler understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to protect themselves and their families. Hazar d communication requirements make applicationspecific and pesticide-specific information available when needed. Notification includes measures to ensure that workers know about pes ticide-treated areas and that reinforce pesticide safety training. Better hazard communicati on and notification imparts more appropriate information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper protective measures when necessary.

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



### 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers may come into contact with them, how to preven t exposure to pesticides, and what to do if exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications.

Worker Training

Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot be provided before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training content and trainer qualifications. Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements and the potential changes EPA has considered.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

25 Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative 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 periodwith provision of essential Rightto-Know information prior to field entry. The full pesticide safety training would be required before the third day of field

entry. (TRAIN-02) Require full training prior to entry into a treated area. (TRAIN-01)

Worker Training Frequency

Training required every five

years Annual training required: (TRAIN-03) Biennial training required: (TRAIN-04)

or Annual training with exception

for WPS farms with < 10 employees, no worker turnover, and no change in application

information (TRAIN-05) Training Content for Workers
11 basic pesticide safety training points covered

1. Possible exposures.

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid for poisonings.

6. Obtaining medical care.

7. Decontamination procedures.

8. Hazards from chemigation and

drift.

9. Hazards from residues on clothing.

10. Warnings about taking

pesticides or pesticide

containers home.

11. WPS requirements. Expand 11 basic safety training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information – SDS (TRAIN-06) Further expand 11 basic safety training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information – crop sheets and product-specific training (TRAIN-07)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

Training for workers can be performed by certified applicators, trainers of certified applicators, peoplewho have completed “Trainthe-trainer” programs, and

handlers Limit worker trainers to those

who:

 Have completed an EPA

approved Train-the-Trainer

program or

 Are trainers of certified

applicators (TRAIN-08) Limit worker trainers to those

who:

 Have completed an EPA

approved Train-the-Trainer

program (TRAIN-09)

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

The WPS currently permits a five-day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of the full pesticide safety training. Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training. After five days of entry into a treated area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must receive full pesticide safety training. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers

was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992.

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

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

TRAIN-02 The proposed requirement would require training prio r to entry into a treated area, but allow an exception with a two-day grace period. It would also expand the information provided to employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in that workers may still be entering treated areas without full trai ning and some workers may never receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some flexibility for growers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

27 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at leas t every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative options.

TRAIN-03/04 The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement. One alternative considered (TRAIN-04) would be to require pesticide safe ty training every two years. Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in them selves and their patients. Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. Annual training is common practice in other industries and not only for safety. For ex ample, the federal government requires annual training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cy bersecurity. OSHA requires annual training in workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements.

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

Pesticide Safety Training Content

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

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

TRAIN-06/07 Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights ( e.g. , to hazard information) and protections ( e.g. , from retaliation), and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS requirements, including informatio n to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and the availability of hazard communication material s, will help to insure safety measures are followed and that workers understand their empl oyer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to pesticides. The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication. The proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see HAZCOM-02); the alternative would explain ho w to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04).

Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications

Currently, pesticide safety training for work ers can be conducted by certified pesticide applicators, handlers, trainers of certified a pplicators, and people who have completed an approved pesticide safety “train-the-trainer” program. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for complete details.

TRAIN-08 The proposed option would eliminate training of wo rkers by certified applicators and handlers. The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a train-the-trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of certified applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with treated plants and other surfaces. Further, wit hout additional preparation, certified applicators and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally-distinct backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their

families.

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

29 Handler Training

WPS provisions for handler safety training are simi lar to those for workers. Handlers must take the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years. The WPS specifies trainer qualifications. Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training and the potential changes EPA has considered.

Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task. No grace period is permitted.

Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Al ternative Handler Training Requirements.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement
Training Frequency Training required every five

years Annual training required: (TRAIN-12) Biennial training required: (TRAIN-13)

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including safety information

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid.

6. Emergency medical care

7. Decontamination procedures

8. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

9. Heat-related illness issues

10. Safety requirements for

handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides

11. Environmental concerns

12. Warnings about taking

pesticides or their containers

home

13. Regulatory requirements of

handling. Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age

limit

 Entry restricted area

requirements

 Requirements for respirator fit

test, training and medical

evaluation

 Hazard information – SDS (TRAIN-14) Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age

limit

 Entry restricted area

requirements

 Requirements for proper

respirator fit test, training, and

medical evaluation

 Hazard information -crop

specific hazard materials product specific training (TRAIN-15)

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at leas t every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

30 TRAIN-12/13 As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN-12). The alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler tr aining every two years. Similar to training frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et
al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both of which would be an impr ovement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6.

Pesticide Safety Training Content

Handler training currently covers 14 topics: (1) product label information, (2) hazards, (3) routes by which pestic ides can enter the body, (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, (6) obtaining medical care, (7) decontamination procedures, (8) personal protective equipment, (9) heat-related illness issues, (10) safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, (11) environmental concerns, (12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, (13) regulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and (14) WPS requirements that employers must meet ( e.g. , notifications, emergency assistance, etc. ). EPA considered expanding the content of the require d handler pesticide safety training to include several additional topics. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

TRAIN-14/15 Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, handler rights, and new WPS requirements. Bene fits would be similar to those of worker training. For handler training, the additional components not relevant to workers would be defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person enters the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

31 Pesticide Safety Training Re cordkeeping and Verification

Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and handlers receive the required pesticide safety training. This makes it difficult for both employers and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training requirements. There is, however, an optional progra m for states to distribute training verification cards supplied by EPA to trainers. Agricultural employers in participating states can hire workers and handlers with valid training veri fication cards, which can reduce their pesticide safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card. However, there is no requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2-3 presents the potential requirements. Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed requirements in detail.

Table 2.2-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Recordkeeping

No Records Required. Employer to keep records of worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers trained, trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of

worker

 Documentation of trainer’s qualification (TRAIN-10) Employer to keep worker training records for 5 years:

 Names of workers trained,

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

worker

 Documentation of trainer’s

qualification (TRAIN-11) Employer to keep handler training records for 2 years:

 Names of handlers trained, trainer and employer

 Date of training

 Date of birth of handler

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of

handler

 Documentation of trainer’s qualification (TRAIN-16) Employer to keep handler training records for 5 years:

 Names of handlers trained,

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of handler

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

handler (TRAIN-17)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

32 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Verification

Voluntary Program Allows for Training Verification Cards Provide verification in the form of a copy of the training record to

handler or worker (TRAIN-20) Eliminate federal option for worker and handler training verification card programs. (TRAIN-18)

or Require worker and handler training verification cards (TRAIN-19)

Recordkeeping

TRAIN-10/16 Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers, employers would be required to document pesticide safety trainings and maintain the reco rds for two years. Documentation would include the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birt h, the training materials used, and the employee’s signature acknowledging training.

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

These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clearmethod for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the fiveyear option over the two-year retention option is that it matches the current five-year training cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period provides greater benefits than a two-year retention period as enforcement actions may not be brought immediately. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed EPA that a two-year retention period is adequate.

Verification

TRAIN-17 This potential requirement would eliminate EPA’ s optional verification card system. States would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. Ho wever, state agencies report that verification cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified. Finally, with the current five-year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current system, verification cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee. In fact, many states do not participate in the system.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

33 TRAIN-18 An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when they are trained. Card distribution would be c onducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. As noted above, this would have little benefit un der the current WPS. Falsified cards and the lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and for enforcement to determine compliance. Ho wever, in conjunction with other potential requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if the existing grace period for full pesticide safety training is eliminated or s hortened (TRAIN-01 and 02), a training verification system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are in compliance with training requirements. Simila rly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or

falsified and will be more reliabl e, potentially reducing the need fo r employees to take multiple trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a

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

TRAIN-19 The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but does not require the use of the verification cards and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained employee. In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requirement would be more convenient for original employer, who would not have to provide individual ized cards to every trained worker. It also insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records. It may be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to another establishment than to carry a wallet-sized card. In addition, the potential for fraud, as with TRAIN-18, remains.



### 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with application-specific information, including the na me of the pesticide used. The information is posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific information be made available and is also proposing to adjust how application a nd pesticide-specific information is presented. Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requirements for hazard

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

34 Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Application Specific Information and Availability

Display at a central location , for each application,

 location and description of treated area;

 active ingredient, product name, registration number;

 time and date of application;

 duration of REI Make a copy available on

request , for each application,

 location and description of treated area;

 crop or site treated

 active ingredient, product name, registration number;

 time and date application started and ended;

 duration and end date of REI (HAZCOM-01) No change from current requirements

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

No requirements for pesticidespecific hazard information Pesticide label and SDS must be

available ( HAZCOM -02) Pesticide label must be available ( HAZCOM -03)

or Distribute crop sheet to workers and/or handlers upon entry into

a treated area ( HAZCOM -04) Retention and Recordkeeping

Application-specific information must be displayed prior to application and for 30 days after the REI Application and pesticidespecific information must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 2

years (HAZCOM-05) Application and pesticidespecific information must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 5

years (HAZCOM-06) Hazard Information Material

No requirements for use or production of crop-specific

hazard materials No change from current requirements Registrant to develop crop sheets for each WPS product and use pattern (HAZCOM-07)

Application Specific Inform ation and Availability

HAZCOM-01 Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application-specific information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the application, and the duration of the REI. The in formation must be posted before the applicationis made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application-specific information as currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The

addition of the site treated information will he lp employees and inspect ors identify the precise

treated area. Addition of the start and end times fo r the application, in conjunction with the date, would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends. This gives employees more precise information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

35 requirement for the pesticide application in formation and instead make the application information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. This approach to hazard communication has certain ad vantages over centralized posting. Detailed information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultural employers to notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many central posting areas are exterior gathering loca tions and postings are subject to loss or damage by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable to request the information from their employer . Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more complete discussion of this requirement.

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

HAZCOM-02 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the SDS. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA requires employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product.

In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from the label and, especially, the SDS. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical and speed the diagnosis of an illness. The SDS also provides treatment information.

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

HAZCOM-04 Under a second alternative, EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and handlers upon entry into a pesticide-treated area. The advantage of this approach is that it provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, reducing the potential for confusio n from multiple postings at the central location. However, the benefits of this detailed information are uncertain. Such detailed information could potentially confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

36 is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005). Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present complex information to this diverse community would be challenging.

Retention and Record Keeping

HAZCOM-05/06 These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the NPRM. As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN-06), the advantage of retaining records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful.

Hazard Information Material

Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g. , the SDS. EPA considered requiring registrants to develop cr op and chemical-specific hazard sheets for all agricultural products, HAZCOM-07. This requirement would support the option discussed above, HAZCOM-04. This information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there may be different use patterns on different crops ( e.g. , application rates) and different potential for exposure on different crops ( e.g. , leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and in different activities ( e.g. , weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not

clear that this additional inform ation provides substantial benef its. Pesticide safety educators have informed EPA that providing very specific and complex information for the agricultural worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions.



### 2.2.3 Notification Options

The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application occurring on a farm or in a nurser y or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented. Current notification requirements include displaying pesticide appl ication and pesticide safety information in a central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing workers, and informing workers enter areas under a REI about the pesticides used. The WPS also requires certain information exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide appropriate notification to their respective employees. EPA is considering revising the notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted entry interval (REI), (2) information on d econtamination procedures, and (3) information transmitted from commercial applicators’ em ployers to the agricultural employer.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

37 Restricted Entry Interval Notification

Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Warnings need not be given to a particular employee if, from the st art of the application to the e nd of the re-entry interval, the employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces. There are currently no requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements.

EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be prov ided in the warning to workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure compliance. Table 2.2-5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements.

Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative 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 ***

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

39 REI Notification

Under the current rule, notification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers by the agricultural employer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except where the product label requires both. Gree nhouses are required to post signs for all applications.

NOTIFY-01 The proposed option would require that warning si gns be posted if for pesticides applications where the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Unit VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leading cause of pesticide incidents, following drift from adjacent fiel ds, according to a NIOSH review of available information (Calvert et al. , 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall . On farms producing a variety of crops, there could be several fields treated with different products and remembering which fields should be avoided could become difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers at the time of the application, but must also re member to notify workers who are not present at the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers receive the appropriate notification.

NOTIFY-02 An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has a REI greater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to

remember REI information for th ree days rather than two.

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

occur over such a short time interval.

NOTIFY-04/05 Oral notification is inherently difficult to enfor ce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or greenhouse.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

40 REI Warning Signs

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

NOTIFY-06 Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words “Keep Out.” The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a widely-recognized symbol for stop. It would also change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter under certain conditions to perform early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions.

NOTIFY-07 An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as require posting field-specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for allpesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The fieldspecific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11).

NOTIFY-08 REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area or an area affording maximum visibility. Sign s are also required to be placed on each border with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated area. The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials.

NOTIFY-09 An alternate potential requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet along the field as well as at the usual points of en try. The advantage of this requirement is that it would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage the plants.

Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

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

41 “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Except for entry under the “no contact” exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks wear all PPE required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information on the pesticide label prior to entry. See th e NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also considering certain revisions to these exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below.

NOTIFY-10 As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al. , 2008). Sufficient information is lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred during employer-directed entry. Under the proposed option, the early entry notification would be expanded to include additional safety informatio n such as the pesticide applied, the start and end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception.

NOTIFY-11 EPA considered requiring agri cultural employers to distri bute written pesticide hazard information ( i.e. , crop sheets) to each worker upon early entr y in addition to the oral warnings, as suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major bene fit to workers would be the ability to refer to the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated with pesticide exposure. Written communicatio n can sometimes provide more clarity than spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpr eted, especially if the employer or employee is using a second language. On the other hand, given language difference s and the literacy rate in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, such documents often end up scattered in the field.

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

Pesticide Safety Information Display

The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide safety training, including steps workers and handl ers should follow to protect themselves from exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Currently, safety posters are required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm. Table 2.2-6 presents current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays. Contact*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

42 information for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things. See Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information. See the NPRM, Unit XII.A, for more on additional displays.

Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Pesticide Safety Information

Basic pesticide safety information display includes

decontamination information and self-protective practices Additional basic pesticide safety information display content to

include:

 State enforcement agency

contact information

 Medical facility contact

information (NOTIFY-14) No change from current requirements

Basic pesticide safety information displayed at a

central location Additional safety information display required with worker decontamination supplies (NOTIFY-15) Additional display with all field warning signs (NOTIFY-17) Additional safety information display with handler decontamination supplies (NOTIFY-16)

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

NOTIFY-15 Under the proposed option, at least one additional safety information display would be required, located when and where worker decontamination supplies are made available. The display would provide essential decontamination information at the time and place it is most needed. Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinforced by routine practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate steps to take in case of exposure will reinforce the training message.

NOTIFY-16 This option would also require at least one additional safety information display for handlers and would be located at the decontamination site(s) typically used for mixing and loading of pesticides. The potential benefits are similar to those described in NOTIFY-15 above.

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

43 the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency personnel.

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms

The WPS requires commercial pesticide handli ng establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. The agricultural employer is required to provide the CPHE with inform ation about treated areas under REIs on the establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently enter a treated field. The CPHE is required to notify the agricultural empl oyer prior to making an appli cation so that information, e.g. , about REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s employees. If there are changes in a scheduled application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employer of changes in a pesticide application to reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2-7.

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler

CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer prior to application of:

 the location and description of the area to be treated;

 date and time of application;

 the product name, active ingredient and EPA registration number for the product,

 the REI,

 whether posting and oral notification are required (double notification),

 any other product-specific protections for humans from the labeling CPHE employer must notify the agricultural employer prior to any changes in the application

Subsequent guidance allows some flexibility in notification of changes CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer prior to application of:

 the location and description of the area to be treated;

 date and time of application;

 estimated time application

ends ;

 the product name, active ingredient and EPA registration number for the product,

 the REI,

 whether posting and oral notification are required (double notification),

 any other product-specific protections for humans from the labeling CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer of any changes within 2 hours of end of application (not required if time of application changes < 1 hour) (NOTIFY-18) No change from current requirements

NOTIFY-18 Under the proposed option, the CP HE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer of the application information prior to the pesticid e application. Notification of a change to the 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 ***

44 and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the NPRM for details. This revision largely clarif ies and codifies existing guidance that provides flexibility for pesticide applications that are of ten dependent on soil and weather conditions but that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS.



### 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers from the adverse effects of pesticides. Proposed changes include establishing minimum age requirements for certain tasks, restrictions covering entry into and around treated areas, and changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE). These provisions are intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides.



### 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

Currently, the WPS contains no age restricti ons for agricultural employees. Adolescents, however, may be at greater risk from pesticide exposure because many of their biological and neurological systems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are adult systems. Further, adolescents may pose greater risks for pesticide exposure because they often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, EPA focused on two situations: handling of pesticides including mixing, loading, and applying; and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the potential restrictions. The NPRM provides a complete description of the proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit XII.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit

XI.B discusses the handler restrictions.

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

Table 2.3-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age

Restrictions.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

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

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

1 Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.

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

45 and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive (EPA, 2002)). Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health. Further, young adults may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006)). Thus, they may be less likely to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment. EPA estimates that there are about 19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent workers who engage in pesticide handling activitie s on farm and it is ex tremely unlikely that youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs.

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



### 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA considered several revisions to the WPS to bolster protections for agricultural workers and handlers. The current requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2.3-2. In some cases, the proposed revisions simply clarify conditions under which a pe rson may be in or near a treated area during

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

46 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 During a pesticide application in nurseries and greenhouses, no one the employer must not allow or direct any persons, except trained and equipped handlers

may , to enter the area being treated ( entry restricted area ) during a pesticide application adjacent to the treatment area

. The During a pesticide application on farms and forests, as well as nurseries and greenhouses, the employer must not allow or direct any persons, except trained and equipped handlers, to enter the entry
restricted area is extended to an

area 25 adjacent to 100 feet, depending on the type of application , aro und the 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

Entry During REI Workers may enter a treatedarea during a REI, if labelrequired protections are provided, for

 no contact activities

 short term activities ( ≤ 1 hour) not including hand

labor

 limited contact activities not including hand labor ( ≤ 8 hours)

 irrigation activities not including hand labor ( ≤ 8 hours)

 agricultural emergencies including hand labor (no time limit) For agricultural emergencies

where a double notification product has been used , entry
must not exceed 4 hours in a 24 hour period (ENTRY-03) For agricultural emergencies

where a double notification product has been used , entry
must not exceed 8 hours in a 24 hour period (ENTRY-04)

or Exceptions would no longer be

allowed (ENTRY-06)

Cholinesterase Inhibition

No restrictions on handlers No change from current requirements Monitor for cholinesterase inhibition and prohibit furtheractivity with cholinesteraseinhibiting products if inhibition

is found (ENTRY-07)

or Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting Formatted: No underline*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

47 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement products to 30 hours in 30 days (ENTRY-08)

Entry during Application

The current requirements limit contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, currently limited to nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit exposure from drift.

ENTRY-01 The proposed requirement , a pplicable to farms and forests, would establish an “entry restricted area” of 25 to 100 feet around the area being treated, depending on the method of application

. , on farms and forestry operations, similar to the area already required in nurseries and greenhouses. The size of the restricted area is based on the pesticide application method because somemethods, such as aerial applications, are more likely to result in drift than others, such as infurrow applications ). . The entry restricted area is limi ted to property under control of the employer. See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details. This “entry restricted area” would protect workers, other employees, and potentially the pub lic in U-Pick operations from pesticide drift. See Chapter 1.

ENTRY-02 The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler.” The proposed requirement wo uld strengthen this by adding a provision that states the handler must “immediately cease or susp end application if any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted area.” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit of the revision is to clarify the action the handler must take if some one is in the treatment area.

Together, these proposed options (ENTRY-01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of worker exposure through unintentional contact during application, which is the second-leading cause of pesticide incidents according to the anal ysis of occupational incident data in Calvert (2008).



### Entry During REI

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure topotentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Agricultural pesticide labels establish cropspecific requirements for the REI – the time after the end of an application during which worker entry is restricted – based on the expected leve l and degradation of residues on treated surfaces and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can be used. For example, if applications are prohibi ted in the latter part of the season, EPA would*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

48 not be concerned about exposure during harvest. Early entry into the treated area during the REI is generally prohibited, except under narrow circ umstances to perform tasks considered critical for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the workers. However, for “agricultural emergencies,” the WPS does not currently specify the length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area.

ENTRY-03 For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers can spend in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used. Please see the NPRM, Unit XII.D for details. Products require double-notification warnings (both oral and sign warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the duration of any exposure, which increases the like lihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained

while the worker is in the field. The four-hour lim it is half the allowed time for the irrigation and limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to

adhere.

ENTRY-04 An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated area under an REI in any twenty-four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency exception, a similar time limit would be less prot ective for workers than the existing time limits on other exceptions.

ENTRY-06 EPA also considered eliminating early entry exceptions, as suggested by some advocacy groups. This option provides more protection for workers than under the current WPS or proposed potential revisions by simply eliminating the potential for exposure. However, except for the agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activities generally resu lt in lower levels of exposure than the activities upon which the REIs are established ( e.g. , thinning or hand harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for these purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring entry, may be less than they first appear.

Cholinesterase Inhibition

Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits signals across nerve synapses. When cholinesterase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur and result in illness. Organophosphate (OP) and carbamate pesticides, widely used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE. Agricultural handlers who mix, load and apply these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition.

ENTRY-07*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

49 One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as is done in Washington State. In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs

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

to measure inhibition.

The purpose of a monitoring program is to identify handlers who have reached a level of exposure that has an observable effect and protect them from further exposure. An ancillary benefit, demonstrated by the Washington progra m, is that it can iden tify farms and individual handlers who may need to alter their practices to reduce exposure in general. A disadvantage of such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individual handler. In 2007, Washington reports that over eight percent of handlers who handled ChE- inhibiting pesticides declined to participate in the program; others may have felt obliged to participate by their employers.

ENTRY-08 Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approach California developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more than the limit. Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects

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

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



### 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide labels may require the use of PPE. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropriate time. This is one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3-3, are evaluated as ways to further improve safety.

Table 2.3-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective Equipment
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Handler employer is required to confirm respirator fit. Require fit test, training and medical evaluation conforming to OSHA requirements; keep

records No change from current requirements*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

50 (PPE-01)

Employers are exempt from certain WPS requirements regarding employees under the supervision of Certified Crop

Advisors Eliminate exemption for WPS employers (PPE-02)

and Eliminate exemption for employers of commercial advising services (PPE-03) No change from current requirements

Substitution of closed system for PPE while mixing/loading pesticides. Define closed system and require records of system

maintenance. (PPE-04) No change from current requirements

Contaminated PPE must be disposed properly Contaminated PPE must be

rendered unwearable and disposed properly (PPE-05) No change from current requirements

PPE-01 The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would establish requirements for annual respirator fit te sting, training of the respirator wearer, and

medical evaluation for handlers who must use a re spirator. This revision incorporates OSHA requirements that apply to workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify when filters need replacement. The medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to identify any health problems that might be exacerb ated by the use of a re spirator, which will help handlers determine if they can safely wear the device. For the employer, the revision would also clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee. Finally, as noted with similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance.

PPE-02/03 The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements, including provision of label-required PPE, for employee s who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and employees working under the supervision of a CCA. This exemption is also extended to commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of CCAs. The proposed revisions eliminate thos e exemptions for WPS employees (PPE-02) and commercial service employees (PPE-03) working under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully trained and may be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk, even with

instruction from a CCA.

PPE-04 Under the current regulations, a closed mixing an d loading system may be substituted for labelrequired PPE. A closed system, under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons.” This definition lacks specificity.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

51 If a health hazard cannot be removed from the workplace, there are three categories of methods to control the hazards according to industrial hy gienists: engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. Engi neering controls should be the first line of defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed systems are considered an engineering control method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to eliminate exposure. Closed systems reduce the human decision-making element from the process so mistakes are not as likely. In contrast , PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g. , in hot weather. Additionally, PPE only protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, the substitution of a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well.

The proposed revision helps to ensure these bene fits by establishing a clear definition of the requirements that constitute a closed system, wh ich is currently lacking. The lack of clear standards means that some closed systems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of system maintenance would help to verify compliance with standards. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the changes are handlers, including self-employed handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who will be assured that the closed system provides protection to minimize exposure.

PPE-05 Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rende red unwearable as part of proper disposal. That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contamination with a pesticide, but are otherwise intact, the agricultural employ er must ensure that the items cannot be used again, e.g. , by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues.



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

EPA is considering regulatory options to improv e emergency assistance for workers and handlers who may have been made ill from exposure to pesticides. Most of these proposals clarify the requirements for the provision of decontamination supplies and of emergency medical response in case of exposure.



### 2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enough,” however, is not defined in the WPS, although EPA has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 2006). Table 2.4-2 presents the options EPA considered for requirements to clarify the quantity of water that must be available to mitigate exposures to workers and handlers.

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

52 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

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “enough” decontamination water per handler Three gallons per handler for routine hand washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. (SUPPLY-03) Showers required at permanent mix/load sites (SUPPLY-04)

All permanent mix/load sites require sufficient running water to flush eyes for 15

minutes at 1.5 L/min. whenever a product requiring handler eye protection is being used (SUPPLY-05) Portable eye wash stations required at all mix/load sites (SUPPLY-06)

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

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

SUPPLY-01 The proposed revision would specify that empl oyers must provide one gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. This codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

53 SUPPLY-02 The proposed revision would specify that employ ers must provide three gallons of water per worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e. , in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit XII.C, for all requirements. This provision provides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the amount of water available for thorough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers. More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for exposure and for higher levels of e xposure than in routine activities.

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

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

SUPPLY-03 This revision would specify that the employer mu st provide three gallons per handler for routine washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontamin ation supplies. As with SUPPLY-01, this codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement agencies.

SUPPLY-04 An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mi xing and loading large quantities of pesticides, including concentrated so lutions. Secondary benefits would be the availability of showers that could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, however, as discussions with field personnel suggest that very few employ ees would avail themselves of shower facilities on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information.

SUPPLY-05 This proposed potential requirement would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be supplied with sufficient running water to flush ey es for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute.

This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required American National Standards Institute (ANSI) st andard Z358.1-1990. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for a complete description of the proposal. The requirement is intended to provide handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient.

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

SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other th an those permanently dedicated for mixing*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

54 pesticides. However, reports from state authoritie s indicate that the stations can be difficult to maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a complete discussion.



### 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

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

Table 2.4-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Emergency Response

Provisions.
Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

“Prompt” provision of transportation,

and obtainable information on product name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, and medical information (symptoms, antidote, etc. ), circumstances of exposure to the pesticide for agricultural workers Provision of emergency transportation and of SDS or label or comparable

information to medical personnel or the injured person within 30 minutes (EMERG-01) Provision of same within 60

minutes (EMERG-02)

“Prompt” provision of transportation,

and obtainable information on the product name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, and medical information, circumstances of handling of and exposure to the pesticide for pesticide handlers Provision of emergency transportation and of SDS or label or comparable

information to medical personnel or the injured person within 30 minutes (EMERG-03) Provision within 60 minutes (EMERG-04)

EMERG-01/03 EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide handlers (EMERG-03). Without a formal definitio n of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance. Clarification of the term “prompt” is

intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transport for medical treatment for an emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner.

In addition to transportation, the proposal also clarifies the time for wh ich pesticide information such as the label and SDS are provided to the injured person or health care providers, who may need this information to determine proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical personnel with information about the pesticide sy mptoms and their treatment in a timely manner is critical in reducing the a dverse effects of exposures.

EMERG-02/04*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

55 The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is provided within 30 minutes.

This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the Agency. It described the benefits anticipated from the revisions, which are generally the provision of more and better information at appr opriate times and places, of improved protection by reducing potential exposure for high-risk situations, and of more rapid and complete mitigation of exposures if they occur. Ultima tely, these changes will lead to fewer acute incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticide exposure over time.

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

discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

56 

## Chapter 3. Cost Analys is, Regulatory Options

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incremental cost of potential changes to the worker protection standards that the Agency considered. The incremental cost is defined as the difference between the cost of complying with the potential requirement and the cost of complying with the current requirement. These cost s, together with the benefits of the potential requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to inform EPA’s selection of requirements that are being proposed. The relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the increm ental cost of all the proposed requirements, considering how they may interact, and Chapter 6 presents the benefits of the proposed revisions

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

These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pe sticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, therefore, made a number of assumptions base d on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms. EPA

has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current re gulations and will be in full compliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities conduct inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted randomly across all potentially regulated establ ishments; many inspections are the result of specific complaints. As a result, the informat ion on violations does not provide meaningful

information on co mpliance rates.

As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, because many of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may

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



### 3.1 Overview

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

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

57 In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate their time or make expenditures. Some act ivities or expenditures are conducted by the management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The na ture of these activities may vary by certain characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other activities require time from employees, who are di vided into two groups: workers and handlers. Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products.

Hand labor activities include such tasks as harves ting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling. Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g. , to mix, load, and/or apply pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are typically workers as well, as they will often en gage in production activities that do not entail handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule depends on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time.

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

businesses.



### 3.2. Regional Groupings

To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum standards, but states, as well as other jurisdic tions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal requirements. To reduce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine regions of the country.

Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the South region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e. , extensive livestock production, rather than geographical co ntinuity. EPA also considered similarities in worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

58 warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the state’s more stringent worker pr otection standards relative to the current federal standards and other states’ requirements.

Table 3.2-1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups. Region Representative State Other Jurisdictions

South Arkansas Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia

California California none

Southwest Colorado Arizona and New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Ogalala Oglala Sioux

Tribes and the Three Affiliated

Tribes Subtropical Florida Hawaii

Midwest Iowa Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and

South Dakota

Northeast New York Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia, plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the

Shoshonne Shoshone -Bannock

Tribe

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

EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is applied to all states within the region. In fact , variation in worker protection standards could be as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is,*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

59 there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-leve l estimates of cost are greater than the variation in regional-level estimates.



### 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential worker protection standards at the national level and at the employer level. EPA also estimates the potential costs across various regions of the Unite d States, as described in Section 3.2. This information is used to evaluate the individual regulatory options and develop a proposed suite of regulatory changes, as explained in Chapter 4. The cost of those proposed requirements, as a whole, is estimated in Chapter 5.

EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas considered different requirement options, as detailed in Chapter 2. In this section, EPA presents the estimated cost of all the potential requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. Section 3.3.1 details the methodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presents some of the key data used throughout the analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3.3 estimates the cost of potential requirements associated with worker and handler training cat egory, including a detailed presentation of an example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions to the WPS concerning hazard communications (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements (Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry re strictions (3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9), and emergency response standards (3.3.10).



### 3.3.1 General Methodology

In general, potential requirem ents may impose costs at both the level of the employer or establishment and at the level of the employee. Th at is, there are some activities and/or materials that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities and/or materials may be conducted by or prov ided for each employee and will vary by the number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate those costs to the regional level, given the number of actors (establishments or employees). There are six basic steps.

Step 1. Calculate the state/regional level baseline cost of existing regulatory requirement:

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,௜,a,௝ ஻

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝ ܿ෍൅

௠ ܯ ∙ ௠,a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݉|݅ሻ

௠

where cost r,i, a

B

t

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

t

is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Prob t ( j | i ) is the*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

60 probability of activity j in time t given the region; M r,i, a ,m P

t is the quantity of material m needed in

time t under the requirement; c m is the cost of material; and Prob t ( m | i ) is the probability of

material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establishment, primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g. , a pesticide handler or agricultural worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g. , farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted by the establishment include posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each employee include attending training and obtaining written material from th e employer, that is, activities for which an

establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity. The probability weighting indicates the likelihood that any given act or will undertake the activity in some year. For example, if training is required bienni ally, any given employee would have about a 50 percent chance of taking a training.

Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per act or of each potential regulatory requirement:

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,a,௝ ௉

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ܿ෍൅

௠ ܯ ∙ ௠,a,௥ ௉

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠

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

,j P

and M r,i,, a ,m B ≤ M r, a

,m P ; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings.

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the ba seline and potential new requirements by multiplying per-actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across

actors.

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,௜,a ஻

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௉

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

where RC r,i

X

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

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

ܥܰ
௥ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܴܥ

௥,௜ ௑

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

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

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௑ ෍൯ൌ ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. The time horizon is not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur annually. However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten years was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might financially amortize such expenditures. Further, the number of actors is changing over time, with the number of farms and farm workers declining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 2008b) spanning a ten-year period. This is explained more fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2003).

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

Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement in each region by subtracting the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement.

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

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

. The PV of national incremental cost, PV ( NIC

r ), is calculated the same way.

Step 6. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present

value as a variable cost stream.

ܥܫܣ
௥ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ

௥ ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

where AIC

r is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time horizon, i.e. , ten years; and all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential requirement. A more detailed examination of im pacts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, considering the costs of all proposed requirements.

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

62 A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses the data that are commonly used throughout the an alysis. Data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement.



### 3.3.2 General Data

For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to meet current and potential requir ements and the probability or fr equency with which they will be needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential requirement. The other component of the per-actor costs are the prices associated with time and material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional an d national (Step 3) requires data on the number of actors in each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the employees to which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time (Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultural sector. Most of the time and materials needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time.

Establishments, Farms

According to the 2007 Ce nsus of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United St ates. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Se rvice (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to iden tify the number of these operations that use pesticides and hire labor. Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the WPS requirements. However, the WPS applies onl y to those pesticides used in the commercial or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. Although many livestock operations utilize pesticid es, especially insecticides, such use is not covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock production. There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3-1 presents the number of farms where crops are raised, including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis. Accord ing to the tabulation, 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007. However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic gr owers. However, many organic producers also have conventionally grown fields and organic-a pproved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

63 There is likely to be substantial overestimation of the number of affected farms, however, because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand labor activities or if handlers are working with pesticides used for crop productio n. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables an d in nurseries and greenhouses. The 2007 Census of Agriculture identifies 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production so many other farms might produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of oilseeds and/or grains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, so this analysis includes all farms with crop production.

Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the definition of handler includes any self-employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. However, these farms will generally not be affected by the proposed revisions because there is an exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some exemptions to pesticid e label requirements, e.g. , entry into treated fields during a REI during an agricultural emergency. Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect all farms applying pesticides.

Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms 1

. Region Crop Farms 1 Regional

Share Farms Using

Pesticides Farms Hiring

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

Texas/Mountain

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

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

The tabulation for farms using pesticides and farm s hiring labor is at the national level only. EPA assumes that farms hiring labor and using pesticides are distributed throughout the country in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus , while the national figures are well-defined, the regional numbers are less precise.

Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a pesticide handler. Instead, the ow ner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a commercial applicator. The split between large fa rms, those with annual gross revenue greater 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 ***

64 Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013) . EPA further subdivides the small farm category into three groups: small-small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 mi llion. These distinctions correlate to the number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also correlate to pesticide use. Around 90 percent of large and large-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four percent of medium-small farms used pesticides.

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

Region WPS

Farms SmallSmall 1 MediumSmall 2 LargeSmall 3 Large 4

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

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

1 Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and f eedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000.

2 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 an d less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000.

3 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million.

4 Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5

million.

Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers

In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) database of companies and identified firms under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting). Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that reported hiring at least one employee.

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

65 commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishments. Given the proportion from Dun & Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimat es that 1,562 aerial ap plicators will have at least one employee.

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

sector.

EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to the NASS data, there were 89,529 commercial a pplicators certified in the Agricultural Plant Production category. Given data on employees from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we estimate those establishments to account for 19, 873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At the extreme, all these commercial applicators could be self-employed. More likely, many are part of small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one-fourth of these applicators are self-employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in Table 3.3-3, this implies that there are 17,414 self-employed commercial applicators and 20,897 CPHEs with two or three applicators. These two categories are distributed across the regions based on the number of commercial appli cators certified in each state (CPARD, 2007).

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

South 416 918 765 California 173 1,049 874

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

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

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

Establishments, Wage Rates

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

66 establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers (since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - “Support Activities for Crop Prod uction”) for SOC code 37-1012 (“First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for fa rm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this category is $30.30 per hour.

Employees, Farmworkers

Table 3.3-4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the category of farms covered by the WPS, we implicitly assume that all labor is covered, over 2.3 million people. The WPS only covers farmworker s engaged in hand labor activities, so this is likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, howe ver, so any overestimation is less than that in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3-4 also presents the number of employees on farms according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the crop farms, the number of workers at the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all

farm workers.

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

Region Farm Labor Regional

Share Farm Labor Large Farms 1 Farm Labor

Small Farms 1

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

Texas/Mountain

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

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

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

67 The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms unknown. EPA assumes that, on average, large WPS farms employ two individuals who handle pesticides and large-small WPS farms employ one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. The distribution of handlers, therefore, is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3-1, not to workers as in Table 3.3-4. Pesticide handlers represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on-farm handler would be occupied full time with pesticide ha ndling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform other production-related tasks.

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

Table 3.3-5. WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers.

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1 Handlers

CPHEs 2

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

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

Texas/Mountain

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

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

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

farms.

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

Employees, Wages

Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage

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

68 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activitie s for crop production). Regional numbers are estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1.

The average wage rate for U.S. field workers reported in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS (2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, wages represent slightly more than 69.5 percent of total compensation, while for workers in the Natural Resource, Construction, and Maintenance category, wages are around 67.5 percent of total compensation. An agricultural category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the choice of loading factor is not critical to estimating the incremental costs of the requirements.

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

Future time periods

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

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ∑ ܿݐݏ݋ ௥,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ
௔ ௧ ௔ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

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

In general, the per-actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, the number of actors is changing as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where g a represents the annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is,

ܰ

௔ ௧ ൌ ܰ
௔ ଴ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ݃

௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

As a result, we can rearrange the equation for PV into components for each actor.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

69 ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ ൌ ෍ ൥ܿݐݏ݋

ത ത ത ത ത ത ௥,a ௑ ∙ ܰ
௔ ଴ ∙෍ ሺ1 ൅ ݃

௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ ൩

௔

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

Based on numbers reported in the Agricultural Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in farm numbers to be 0.47% annually and thedecline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the tenyear sum of the combined effects is a multiplier of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers.The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a tenyear sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3-6. Annual data on the number of farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the number of farms is quite steady and that the annual decline in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in estimated costs is negligible, howev er, and does not influence the rela tive cost and benefits of the options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered in a sensitivity analysis for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5.

Table 3.3-6 Multipliers for calculating NPV.

Actor g a r = 3% r = 7%

WPS Farms - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Handlers - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Workers - 2.14% 8.03 6.91

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93

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

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52

Source: EPA calculations.

For CPHEs with multiple employees, the growth rate is calculated using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Censu s Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Prep aration, Planting, and Cultivating) as representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CPHEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 4.27 percent per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate the future growth of commercial pesticide services. If the future rate of growth is more moderate, the multiplier would be lower.

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

70 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37- 3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent

discount rate.

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

commercial handlers.

This completes the discussion of the general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response and decontamination supplies.



### 3.3.3 Training

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity co st of labor during the time workers and handlers are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide a pplicator firms bear costs for handler training.

We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct training sessions even if over the course of the production season they find they do not need to make pesticide applications. Otherwise, any untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained prior to an application, which could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pesticide application could be made and untrained employees would not be allowed to work in and around treated ar eas until they receive training, which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms may find it more cost-effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the incr emental cost of potential training requirements if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes that WPS farms find it cost-effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, but will not under potential regulations. For ex ample, currently, if the owner/operator is a certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid provision of training as needed. A potential re quirement, however, would raise the qualifications needed to lead a training, which might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential requirements if training occurs as needed in the baseline but w ill occur regardless of pesticide

use under the revisions. We also assume that a ll employees receive training, which likely leads to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especially on farms with a primary focus of livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

71 In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training re quirement in detail to demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requirements, we provide summary information about the effect of the requiremen ts and present the results. Details on the estimation are available in Appendix A. Potentia l requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2.

Requirement: Immediate Training of Workers

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

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

area described above.

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

Regarding the provision of training, the cost is es sentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do

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

ݐݏ݋ܿ ௠௥ி,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ
௝ ∙ ܪ ௥,௜,ி௥௠,௝ ஻

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

where j , in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training. There are four types of trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different wage rate. Table 3.3-7 presents this estimation. Th e four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3-7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scientist). Handler wages are as explained in Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are base d on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2. The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with trainers, extension agents, and employers who indi cate that certified applicators, who may be the owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA assumes that a full training curre ntly takes about 30 minutes.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

72 Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-4), there are, on average, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and 3.6 workers per small WPS farm. With a five-year training cycle, an average of four workers to less than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number could easily be accommodated with a single session. However, given new hires, including workers who change employers, an average farm may need to train almost half its work force each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 workers. Given the overall averages, and the flexibility for training new hires provided by the five-day period before a worker must be trained, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a WPS farm conducts one full training each year. Individual farms will differ, perhaps substantially. In fact, EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an average of 2.2 training session per year, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 sessions per year, and large farms with more than ten workers hold 4.5 session per year. On average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of trainer is simply the proportion of trainings that type of trainer conducts.

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2. 65 66Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1. 89 90

Training by certified applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10. 58 63

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

cost r , i

, a

B $15. 23 29
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego traini ng unless and until a pesticide application is needed. The probability of cond ucting a training is therefore weighted by the likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1 percent. Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11. 74 79

.

The per-worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a similar manner. Each worker to be trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48.9 percent of workers will to be trained each year. This percentage is derived as follows.

Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the National Agricultural Workers Survey

, (NAWS), 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 percent of the agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers. While this*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

73 underestimates the true turnover rate in agricu lture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and examines the impact of this bias in a later sensitivity analysis.

This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. According to the NAWS (DoL, 2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more than five years. Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the voluntary training verification cards provided in so me states are not well accepted by employers as sufficient proof of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training even though they are within the five-year period because they have changed employers and/or don’t remember when they last took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. Some workers may even receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year. In the absence of specific data, EPA assumes another 20 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the full training for one of these reasons reason or another

. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training 2

. Note that some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 2001-2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional co sts associated with the worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of the proposals and

alternatives.

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

workforce.

Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1.4 percent. However, this suggests that up to 35,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training when they are hired or within five years of a previous training.

Table 3.3-8 presents the per-worker cost of tr aining under current requirements, including the per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviate d training only. We further assume that 25 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each

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 ***

74 year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three minutes of time by the trainer, who would likel y be the establishment operator, whose time is valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2.

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

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

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08

cost r , a

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

For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that make a pesticide application. Weighting the pr obability of attending some kind of training session by this amount yields an expected cost per worker of $2.97.

Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of Potential Requirement The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner.

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

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j annual frequency

Prob( j ) cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84

Training by certified applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16

cost r , a

P $22. 84 85
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities w ould again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pes ticide application. Expected compliance cost
would be $17.62.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

75 The per-worker cost for an establishment is similar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be trained every year as explained above. This percentage includes workers employed for less than six days since the grace period

would be eliminated.

In the first year under the rule, EPA calculates that an additional 1.2 percent of the total workforce will need training. This represents the returning workers who previously worked less than six days and, under the grace period, did not receive a full training. The percentage is calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returning workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the workforce we calculated above as receiving only abbreviated training.

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

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i ,j annual frequency

Prob( j ) cost

cost r, a

P

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

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources.

Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs are estimated to be $2.98 in the first year and
$2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower becau se the probability of attending a training is adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that make a pesticide application.

Step 3. Estimate Regional L evel Baseline and Compliance Costs Given the estimated costs per-establishment and per-worker, we can estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that are affected by the requirements and adding the two components together.

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

Table 3.3-11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3-2 and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4. Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $13.9 million per year. Estab lishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of actors is anticipated to decline. Under the al ternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

WPS Farms WPS Workers Regional Cost,

Baseline

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

Region Number of

WPS Farms

N i frm Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr South 58,804 274,068 $ 1, 826 830 California 24,469 394,844 $ 1, 713 715 Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 460 461 Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529 Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2, 321 327 Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1, 565 568 Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2, 587 593 Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1, 370 373 Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1, 524 525
US 394,658 2,322,610 $13, 896 922
Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3-1. Baseline costs per WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements. In the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million.
Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9 .0 million while worker-level cost rise only slightly over the baseline. In future years, EPA estimates the worker-level will decline slightly because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training. The expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million.

Overall, however, the requirement would reduce th e flexibility of agricultural establishments to hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees.This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in perestablishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost,

Potential

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

P

$22.84 $ 3.41

Region Number of WPS

Farms

N i est Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr South 58,804 274,068 $ 2, 277 278 California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,905 Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 558 Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 605 Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,978 Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,879 Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 3,286 Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,742 Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1, 702 703
US 394,658 2,322,610 $16, 932 933
Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NA SS (2008b); see Table 3-3.2. Baseline costs per establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes training costs are incurred only by those WPS farms making a pesticide application in a given year. Under this scenario, the first-year cost is
estimated to be $13.9 million.

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

That is,

ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௉ ൯ ൌ ෍ ൥ܿݐݏ݋

ത ത ത ത ത ത ௥,a ௑ ∙ ܰ
௔ ଴ ∙ ෍ ሺ1 ൅ ݃

௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ ൩

௔

becomes, for the worker cost at the national level,

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

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

78 Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremen tal Cost of the Potential Requirement. The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional baseline costs.

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

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

Table 3.3-13 Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

Region PV(RC P frm ) PV(RC P wrkr ) PV(RC B frm ) PV(RC B wrkr ) PV(RIC) ($1,000) ($1,000)
South 11, 569 571 7,349 7, 713 746 7,471 3, 735 704 California 4, 814 815 10,588 3, 209 223 10,763 1, 430 417 Plains 2,485 2,118 1, 656 664 2,153 793 787 Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1, 294 300 3,039 598 592 Midwest 16, 849 851 8,034 11, 233 281 8,167 5, 484 438 Northeast 7, 997 999 7,474 5, 332 355 7,597 2, 543 521 Ohio Valley 17, 936 938 9,467 11,957 12,009 9,623 5, 823 774

Texas/Mountain

West 9, 550 552 4,983 6, 367 394 5,065 3, 101 075 Northwest 4, 503 504 9,280 3, 002 015 9,433 1, 348 336
US 77, 645 656 62,283 51, 763 986 63,309 24, 855 643
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent discount rate. Regional costs are estimated to range from $ 68 67 ,000 per year in the Subtropical region to $ 663 657 ,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

79 Table 3.3-14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

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

RIC
$1000 $1000
South 18, 918 920 15, 183 216 3, 735 704 425 422 California 15, 402 403 13, 972 986 1, 430 417 163 161 Plains 4, 602 603 3, 809 816 793 787 90 Subtropical 4,931 4, 333 339 598 592 68 67 Midwest 24, 883 886 19, 400 448 5, 484 438 624 619 Northeast 15, 471 472 12, 929 952 2, 543 521 289 287 Ohio Valley 27, 403 405 21, 580 632 5, 823 774 663 657

Texas/ Mountain West 14, 533 534 11, 432 459 3, 101 075 353 350 Northwest 13,784 12, 435 448 1, 348 336 153 152
US 139, 928 939 115, 073 296 24, 855 643 2, 829 805
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 6. Estimate National Level Incremen tal Cost of the Potential Requirement.

The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level

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

Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3. 3-14. The incremental cost of the potential requirement is estimated to be $24. 9 6 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an average of $7. 2 0 10 per year per WPS farm. The perfarm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time spent in training may represent forgone wages.

Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training As discussed throughout this example, EPA examin ed the effect of the assumption that all farms hiring labor would, on average, c onduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately made on the farm. Under the alternative assumption that training only occurs if a pesticide application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $2.2 million annually, or $5.50 per year per WPS farm, on average.

At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers attending training would increase from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of this potential requirement is estimate d to be $5.1 million per year or $12. 90 80 per WPS farm.

Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined th e impact of the approximated hiring rate on estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A higher rate means more new workers who must receive abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained. The former is the larger effect, implying that by using th e lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

80 training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using of a 16 percent new hire rate. Th erefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias.

Other Training Requirements

Table 3.3-15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential training requirements EPA is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we briefly discuss the results and highlight any data considerations.

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

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

.

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

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000)
01 Immediate Training 139, 928 939 115, 073 296 24, 855 643 2, 829 805 02 Immediate Training with Exceptions 135, 168 225 115, 073 296 20,095 19,929 2, 287 268 03 Annual Worker Training 192, 116 127 115, 073 296 77,043 76,831 8, 769 745 04 Biennial Worker Training 142,536 143,34

5 115, 073 296 27,463 28,049 3, 126 192 05 Annual Worker Training, Small Farm Exception 184,234 181,32

0 115, 073 296 69,162 66,024 7, 872 515 06 Expand Worker Training

Content 2 159,858 160,16

4 121,883 122,09

2 37,976 38,072 4, 322 333 07 Expand Worker Training Content (crop sheet variant) 2 168, 489 813 121,883 122,09

2 46, 607 721 5, 305 318

08 Increase Worker Trainer

Standards 124,795 125,06

0 115, 073 296 9, 722 764 1, 107 111

09 Increase Worker Trainer Standards, Train-the-Trainer 124,795 125,06

0 115, 073 296 9, 722 764 1, 107 111*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000)

variant 10 Keep Worker Training Records -2yr 14, 216 269 0 14, 219 269 1, 618 624 11 Keep Worker Training Records -5yr 17, 092 144 0 17, 092 144 1, 945 951 12 Annual Handler Training 3 56,579 26,045 30,534 3,475 13 Biennial Handler Training 3 39,385 24,979 14,406 1,640 14 Expand Handler Training

Content 3 30,284 24,524 5,761 656 15 Expand Handler Training Content (crop sheet variant) 3 31,513 24,524 6,989 795 16 Keep Handler Training Records- 2yr 4 1,550 123 1,427 162 17 Keep Handler Training Records- 5yr 4 2,658 123 2,536 289 18 Eliminate Training

Verification Cards 0 4,985 -4,985 -567 19 Require Training Verification Cards 10,618 4,985 5,633 641 20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training 3,395 4,985 -1,590 -181

Source: EPA estimates.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 California requires additional worker training cont ent, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the potential requirement.

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

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

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

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

circumstances.

Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provides the training, and at the worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings. The primary reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training each year. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental costs to the agricultural sector of about $8. 8 7 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20 per establishment. Biennial worker training (T RAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment.

If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pesticide application is made, fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year. Under this assumption, annual training is estimated to cost about $7.4 million annually ($18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would
cost about $ 2.6 1.8 million ($ 6. 7 0 4.50 per WPS farm).

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

farms would meet the latter two criteria. EPA esti mates that, if five percent of small farms could take advantage of the exception ( i.e. , had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in previous years), this option would cost about $7. 9 5 million per year across all farms, about
$ 0. 8 1.2 million less than annual training without excep tions. The incremental cost is estimated
to be $ 1 3.60 12.40 per year, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training is estimated to be $15. 90 40 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $ 1 1.30 10.20 per year, on average. Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance with the criteria for exception.

TRAIN-06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation of the hazard information found in the SDS. Together, the expanded content is expected to add another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06). This averages out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm. The alternative would include an explanation of the hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes. The alternative is expected to cost about $5.3*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

83 million per year or an average of $13. 40 50 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two-year delay in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content.

The baselines for TRAIN-06 and 07 are different from those changing the frequency of requirement because California already requires expanded content similar to TRAIN-06.

EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a given year conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of traini ng (TRAIN-06) would cost $3.6 million annually, or $9.00 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-07) would cost $4.3 million annually, or $11.10 per WPS farm.

TRAIN-08 and 09. Increase worker trainer qualifications. These possible requirements would set standards for trainers of agricultural workers. TRAIN-08 (proposed) would require trainers to be qualified trainers of certified applicator s or individuals who have completed an approved Train-the-Trainers program; TRAIN-09 would on ly allow individuals who have completed an approved Train-the-Trainers program. The impact of these potential requirements would be an increase in the overall cost for trainers. There may be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about $1.1 million per year or $2.80 per WPS farm for both options. In the short term, both options could result in a shortage of trainers, with TRAIN-09 the more problematic. Employers could face delays in scheduling training sessions, a cost we cannot quantify. Implementation of the revision would be delayed two years to allow for more trainers to be trained.

The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estimated to be $ 853 857 ,000 per year or $2.20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may not be available on demand. Under this high-cost scenario, the incremental cost is estimated to be $2.8 million annually or $7.20 per WPS farm.

TRAIN-10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are not required to maintain records of the workers who have received training. These potential revisions would impose such requirements. Cost s consist of the opportunity cost of labor for employees to acknowledge training and for empl oyers to distribute, collect, and store the acknowledgements. There are also material cost s to store the acknowledgements, depending on the length of storage. TRAIN-10 would require retention for two years while TRAIN-11 would require retention for five years. In total, the cost to document and store records on agricultural worker training is estimated to cost about $1.6 to $ 1. 9 2.0 million annually or $4.10 to $4.90 per year per WPS farm.

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

TRAIN-12 and 13. Frequency of handler training. Current requirements stipulate that handler training is valid for five years. EPA considered increasing the frequency of training to every year under TRAIN-12 or every other year unde r requirement TRAIN-13 for handlers. Training*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

84 costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. As with worker training, some establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase in the frequency of trainings, but the primary reas on that the regulatory cost increases is that more handlers would receive training each year.

EPA estimates that there are over 247,000 handlers employed by WPS farms, based on the assumption that there are, on average, two handlers for each large farm (annual revenues greater than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between $100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BLS, 2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories todetermine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic training. We exclude selfemployed commercial handlers and other handlers who are certified because the training or examinations required by states would meet the WP S requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be certified or in the process of obtaining cer tification and would probably meet WPS training requirements.

Under TRAIN-12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about $3.5 million per year an d would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17.00 per year and CPHEs an additional $66.70, on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or seek commercial certification, the true incremental cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial training under TRAIN-13 would cost $1.6 million annu ally over the baseline. Average per entity costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8.10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs would incur additional costs of about $27.40 per year, on average. The per-entity costs are higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handlers.

California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the federal standards. In the case of the potential requirement requiring biennial training, the cost of

California baseline is constrained to be that unde r biennial training to account for the fact that federal requirements would not lower co sts to California establishments.

It could be that pesticide handlers would only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. Under this scenario, requiring annual handler traini ng would result in an incremental cost of $3.1 million annually or $15.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide applications, there is no change in the assumptio ns underlying the estimate of their cost. Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an add itional $1.4 million per year ($6.90 per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EPA notes that the assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handlers has little effect on the estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms making pesticide applications in any given year.

TRAIN-14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of handler trainings and EPA estimates that training s take about 45 minutes based on the length of commercially available video materials. The ex panded content under the potential requirements*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

85 could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the training covers hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04). This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training each year. Average handler training costs under TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by $3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year respectively. These requirements would not take effect for two years while the new training mate rials are developed. As noted above, we are likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS

farms.

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

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the incr emental cost of these requirements under the assumption that handler training occurs only if a pe sticide application is made during the season. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-14) would cost about $553,000 per year ($2.70 per larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minut es of training (TRAIN-15) would cost about $680,000 per year ($3.30 per WPS farm). CPHE costs are not affected by these assumptions.

TRAIN-16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and CPHEs are not required to maintain records of the handlers who have received training, except in California. These potential requirements are simila r to TRAIN-10 and 11. In total, the cost to document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $162,000 to $289,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1.40 per larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to $3.80 per CPHE.

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

TRAIN-18, 19, and 20. Training verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would end voluntary programs to issue training verifi cation cards. The cost of the program is the opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them;

EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards . About 22 states and territories currently participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although fo ur of the 19 states in those three regions have requested verification cards. For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation. Arkansas, along with five of the seven states it represents, part icipates, as does California and Colorado, along with one of the two states it represents. Baselin e costs for these three regions, South, California,*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

86 and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the states. Baseline costs for the other three regi ons, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are calculated using a 50 percent participation rate because about half the states in these regions participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of participation, EPA estimates that eliminatin g the training verification program (TRAIN-18) could save about $567,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards. Savings per WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only occur in states currently par ticipating in the program.

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

Replacing the voluntary program with a requirement that employees be provided evidence of training (TRAIN-20) would, under the current frequency of training, save about $180,000 annually or about $0.50 per year per WPS farm and $0.04 per CPHE. Savings arise because individualized cards are more expensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states are currently providing cards or otherwise subsidizin g them. Further, savings only arise in states currently participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs.

If training currently occurs only if a pesticide application is ma de on a WPS farm, the cost saving of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to be $498,000 per year while the cost of requiring verification cards would be about $566, 000 annually. Requiring verification through a copy of the training register (TRAIN-20) would save around $158,000 annually, under this alternative assumption.



### 3.3.4 Hazard Communication

Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their employees about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they are not considered in this analysis. As with training, the impacts include the opport unity cost of labor for providing and receiving

the information as well as materials used to di sseminate the information. Hazard communication requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pes ticide applications.

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

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

.

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

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

02 Pesticide Information Availability – SDS and

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

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

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

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

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

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

In this section, we discuss the results of th e estimation and present details if the situation diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in Appendix A. Throughout this an alysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following examples show how EPA arrived at

this number.

 Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields,

which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn – soybean rotation with some fields in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical

farm.

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

88 applications per year.

 Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’ s climate allows two or even three crops each year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including an herbicide treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receive s about six pesticide treatments, considering tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagger production activities. Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of pesticide applications. Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average.

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

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

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

89 Table 3.3-17. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application

Information.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 15.4 $ 36.26
Information sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 15.4 $ 1.39 Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 15.4 $ 7.25

cost r,i, a

B $ 44.90
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM-01, WPS farms would provide the application information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minutes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a request would occur. It is likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assuming a request for 25 percent of applications, or 3.9 times per year. This is likely to be a sign ificant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $10.88 per year, making the total cost of the new requirement $48.53 per farm per year. This is also the baseline

cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a provision that employees or their representatives can request the application information.

There are no actions required of any other actor. Table 3.3-18 presents the estimated regional costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Texas already require the display of the additional information.

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

cost r,i, a

B $ 44.90

cost r,i, a

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

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

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

Source: EPA estimation.

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

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

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

will be lower.

HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04. Pesticide-specific information. Agricultural employers are currently required to post information about pesticide appl ications, including the active ingredient used and the product name and registration number. The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be

collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and copy the material. The SDS is typically available with the label at distributors and on line. Four representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually. The cost is proportional to the number of applications.

An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM-03). The cost of this option would be just over $1.6 m illion annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications. This information would be cropchemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given typical cropping practices, and emergency procedur es in case of exposure. These sheets would likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cost of this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm.

HAZCOM-05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA considered requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be materials such as copies of the application information and something in which to keep records. Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs over a ten-year period at the national level are
shown in Table 3.3-14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2.9 to 3.3 million respectively, which averages out to be $7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM-05 to $8.40 per

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

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

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

year.



### 3.3.5 Notification

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

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

Table 3.3-19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in previous tables, it shows the present value of regional compliance costs for the potential requirements, PV(RC P ), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B ). The present value of the incremental costs, PV (RIC), are calculated as the difference between compliance with the potential requirements and th e baselines. The most costly item considered is the requirement to post warning signs for Restricted Entry Intervals every 100 feet around the perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this would cost $ 256 261 million per year in additional signs and labor. Other po tentially costly requirem ents include maintaining records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY-04 and 05). These two potential requirements
would cost about $ 1 9.5 20 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements considered by EPA include revisions to warning signs and safety posters (NOTIFY-06 and 14), which are expected to cost $ 97 99 ,000 and 108,000 per year respectively. EPA is also proposing to allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $10,000 per year nationally.

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

.

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

RIC $1,000 $1,000

01 REI > 48 hours Warning Sign 412,958 420,709 320,324 322,892 92,634 97,816 10,543 11,133

02 REI > 72 hours Warning Sign 385,126 392,487 320,324 322,892 64,802 69,594 7, 375 921

03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral

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

Oral Notification – 2 years 176

, 07 5 177,198 0 176

, 07 5 177,198 20, 040 168*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

RIC $1,000 $1,000
05 Record Keeping for

Oral Notification – 5 years 1 7 8

, 2 92 180,074 0 1 7 8

, 2 92 180,074 20, 293 495 06 Revise Warning Sign (“Entry restricted Area”) 19, 062 535 18, 211 663 851 873 97 99 07 Revise Warning Sign (Skull and Cross Bones) 45,909 46,923 18, 211 663 27,698 28,260 3, 152 216 08 Posting Warning Signs w/in 100 ′ worker housing 96,375 99,064 96,375 99,064 0 0 09 Posting Warning Signs every 100 ′ 2, 34 6,405 394,818 96,375 99,064 2, 2 50,030 295,755 256,089 261,294

10 Oral Information for Entry restricted –

workers 10, 296 295 4,162 6,134 698

11 Oral and Written

Information for Entry restricted –

workers 13,547 4,162 9,386 1,068 12 Record Keeping for Entry restricted – workers 2 years 4,120 0 4,120 469 13 Record Keeping for Entry restricted – workers 5 years 6,996 0 6,996 796 14 Revise Safety Poster 8,729 7,777 951 108 15 Safety Poster, -

Worker

Decontamination 25,336 7,777 17,558 1,998 16 Safety Poster, -

Handler

Decontamination 14,669 7,777 6,891 784 17 Safety Poster with REI signs 48,826 49,872 7,777 41,049 42,094 4, 672 791 18 Clarify Notifications by Commercial Applicator 316,546 316,546 0 0 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

NOTIFY-01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requirements require the physical posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

93 sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e. , both verbal communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications and these new requirements would not apply to those operations. Costs are expected to vary by farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to smal l-small farm is presented in Table 3.3-20, as an example. EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will ha ve to be informed of the REI upon returning to work. This mean s employers may have to provide multiple notifications. Employers with many workers, ho wever, may find it too complicated and too time consuming to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs already. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two signs are generally needed for posting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker housing adjacent to fields such that a third si gn would be needed (see NOTIFY-08). Signs will generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is

77. 2 1 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per-farm cost is esti mated to be between $35 and
$ 1 05 110 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season.

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 14.3 $ 20.14 Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0. 3 13 307 $ 3. 55 47 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1. 25 23 $ 11. 78 54 Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0. 01 1 018 $ 0. 19 30 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0. 0 45 071 $ 0. 63 1.00

cost r,i, a

B $ 36. 28 45
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

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

than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Do uble notification is still required for ten percent of applications. As a result, the expected per-establishment cost
increases to between $70 and $ 1 05 110 , where large farms with many workers are not expected to be impacted. Due to less frequent oral notificat ions, the expected per-worker cost decreases to
$5 to $7.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

94 Table 3.3-21. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i ,j /M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 10.0 $ 14.09 Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0. 3 13 307 $ 7. 09 6.94 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 5. 01 4.91 $ 47 46 .14 Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0. 01 1 018 $ 0. 38 60 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0. 178 284 $ 2.51 4.01

cost r,i, a

B $ 71. 22 79
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of

the time. Per-establishment cost is calculated to be between $60 and $ 1 05 110 per year and perworker cost to be between $ 5 .60 6.00 and $ 7.80 8.00 , depending on farm size.

Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $7. 3 9 million annually if posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $ 10.5 11.1 million annually if posting is required for REIs over 48 hours. The estimated incremental costs average $ 2 8.70 20.10 to $ 2 6.80 28.30 per year per non-greenhouse WPS farm across all farm sizes.

These estimates take into consideration the allowa nce that new signs are to be phased in by the third year.

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

NOTIFY-04 and 05. Record keeping of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS would require owners/operators to obtain ack nowledgement from their employees that the employees were notified of REIs. Under NOTI FY-04, these records would be kept for two years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY-01 and 02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to post or orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the document. The annual frequency for each action is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, explained above. The cost for large farms is*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

95 estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost-effective to post fields when there are many workers. There is also a per-worker cost for providing the signature, which EPA estimates to be $1. 34 46 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double notification products as explained under NOTIFY -03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be $3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year.

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

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Prepare copy of warning 28.21 0.033 15.0 14.12

Information sheet 0.09 1 15.0 1.35 Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 16.5 23.30 Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 15.0 7.06

Folder 0.20 1 0.75 0.15

cost r,i, a

B $ 45.98
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY-04 is $20. 0 2 million annually. The average cost per WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $ 5 0. 8 0 51.20 per year and is similar for small and large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10. NOTIFY-05, with a five-year retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $20. 3 5 million per year with an average cost per WPS farm of $ 5 1.40 52.00 per year and $7. 60 90 per year per greenhouse.

NOTIFY-06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon and replace the words “Keep Out” with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used. For the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensiv e. Nationally, this revision may cost about $ 97 99 ,000 per year. Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30. For NOTIFY-07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application-specific information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written. This could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8. 00 10 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS greenhouses, on average. Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which they are required to post REI warning signs.

NOTIFY-08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if worker housing is adjacent to the field. The numbe r of access points to a field is highly variable, but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across irrigation infrastructure for worker s and/or equipment to enter. We assume about 20 percent of*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

96 farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e.

, costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the material cost of the signs. Signs can be reus ed, so most establishments probably only need two or three, i.e. , to post one field at a time. Greenhouses , however, must post warning signs for all pesticide applications and likely need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots simultaneously.

NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to engender any costs.

EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require posting warning signs every 100 feet around a treated area to alert workers if, fo r example, they were to cross a field without passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09). Size and shape of field are extremely variable, but as a scenario that might be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet , requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular one-acre plot. Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates that this potential requirement could cost over $2. 2 3 billion dollars over ten years at a three percent discount rate or about $ 256 261 million annually. The annual incremental cost is estimated to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $ 650 660 for other WPS farms.

NOTIFY-10 and 11. Provide information to work ers entering treated fields during the REI. Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the restricted-entry interval is in effect. Workers mu st have either read the product labeling or been informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. NOTIFY-10 would permit oral instruction, but would require more detailed information be provided, which would require more time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY-11 would require that the information also be prov ided in writing, in the form of crop sheets generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about $698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIFY-11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively.

NOTIFY-12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively). Record keeping is expected to cost about $469,000 per year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact information for medical assistance and for state agen cies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimate s that this potential requirement would cost*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

97 growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years. The annualized cost is estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. Costs may be somewhat overstated because signs are available free through EPA.

NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17. Safety displays at decontamination sites. These requirements wouldadd additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supplies are located. NOTIFY15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms. NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI warning signs are posted. The cost of these requirements arises from the cost of new signs and the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that thes e requirements will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be required. EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. Table 3.3-23 presents EPA’s estimates of the per-establishment unit costs, assuming that the requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur much higher cost for posting sa fety displays with REI signs because they likely post more frequently than do small farms. See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02. If safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the number of postings by shifting to oral notification.

Table 3.3-23. Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites

Establishment Baseline Worker

Decontamination

Sites (NOTIFY-15) Handler

Decontamination

Sites (NOTIFY-16) With REI Signs (NOTIFY-17)

Small WPS Farm/Nursery $ 2.23 $ 7.18 $ 3.54 $11. 34 49

Small WPS

Greenhouse $31.17

Large WPS Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 $ 33.07 34.37

Large WPS

Greenhouse $42.20

Source: EPA estimates.

Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA

estimates the national cost for worker decontam ination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be $2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. Placing safety posters with REI warning sign s (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4. 7 8 million annually or $ 1 1.80 12.10 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-18. Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers. WPS currently requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that proper steps can be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field. Further, if*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

98 there are any changes to the application, e.g. , delay in application, change of product (brand), the CPHE must immediately inform the client. The latter requirement has raised concerns about the practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker safety is provided in a timely manner. The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI begins. It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise

from this revision.

Sensitivity Analysis The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide applications per year instead of 20 applications.

The incremental costs for the potential requir ements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications. This is because the baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated by allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of record keeping of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of providing more information upon early entry (NOTIFY-10 and 11) varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years (NOTIFY-12). Maintainin g records for five years (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number of applications because of fixed costs of storage.

The incremental costs of the potential notificati on requirements that deal with revisions to REI warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY-09) varies with the number of applications, but less than proportionally. The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which would require safety displays with every REI warn ing sign. The revisions to clarify when signs must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18) are not expect ed to entail costs regardless of the number of applications.



### 3.3.5 Age

EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

99 The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference with labor costs under the potential requirement. Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category.

Table 3.3-24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1

.

Region NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Minimum Age of 16, Early Entry Workers 10,734 9,366 1,367 156 02 Minimum Age of 18, Early Entry Workers 15,974 9,618 6,356 723 03 Minimum Age of 16,

Handlers 2 42,290 38,192 4,098 466 04 Minimum Age of 18,

Handlers 2 65,019 38,192 26,827 3,053
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline.

AGE-01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is considering setting a minimum ag e for agricultural workers (other than immediate family members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restricted-entry interval may occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no

contact with treated surfaces such as some irri gation activities. In this analysis, EPA has assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on average, half of the farm’s workers will be engage d in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any under-age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum age older for these limited events. Thus, these potential requir ements are likely to impose negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time.

As an upper bound, however, we assume that th e employer would have to substitute a higher paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age and experience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as $5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer.

The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 18 would impose*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

100 costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management.

AGE-03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e. , those who mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides classified as Category I or II toxicity. EP A evaluated the impacts of both a 16-year minimum (NOTIFY-03) and an 18-year minimum (NOTIFY-04).

Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages. The wage rate for adult handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on-farm to be $7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valued at 30 percent of total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- and 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year.

To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35. This would be

an upperbound upper bound , of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years of age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $21.35 per year.

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment. Labor costs assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

101 Table 3-3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost
Baseline, WPS Farm

14-15 Year Old 10.41 50 0.004 1.92

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Total WPS farm 12.43

Baseline, CPHE 16-17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18
Minimum Age, 16, WPS

Farm

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Adult 20.83 50 0.004 3.84

Total WPS farm 14.35
Minimum Age, 18 Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.021 21.35 Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64
Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations.

EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group. Table 3.3-26 presents EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state requirements, RL B , and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RL P . Incremental labor
costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect and about $880,000 for CPHEs.

Table 3.3-26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year Age Restriction, Year 1.

Region N WPS hndlr B RL P RL B

($1,000)
South 36,924 1,116 655 California 15,365 464 273 Southwest 7,930 240 141 Subtropical 6,195 187 110 Midwest 53,776 1,625 954 Northeast 25,525 771 453 Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016 Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541 Northwest 14,373 434 255
U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398

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

102 Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about $466,000. The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per

WPS establishment.

These requirements could result in higher labor co sts for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults.



### 3.3.6 Entry

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide applications occur. Unlike the training and not ification examples, which require farm operators, agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials. These potential requirements preclude certain work activitie s from occurring at certain times in certain places. The primary cost of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management burden of scheduling work activities and pesticid e applications to minimize conflicts. This burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the potential requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

103 Table 3.3-27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

. Region NC P NC B NIC Annualized NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Expand restricted area 01

Restricted area of 25 to 100 ft during application for all agricultural establishments 0 0 0 0 02 Application must not result in

contact with others 02 Halt application if non-handler

enters treatment area 0 0 0 0 03 Limit entry during emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0 04 Limit entry during emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0 05 Eliminate early entry exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358 06 Monitoring handlers for chlolinesterase inhibition 137,368 3,394 133,975 15,248 07 Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting products 38,533 1,470 37,063 4,218
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

ENTRY-01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is restricted to appropriately attired handlers. A proposed requirement defines the entry restricted area during an application on a WPS farm or forestry operation as extending 25 to 100 feet from the edge of the treated area, depending on the application method. This restriction already applies to WPS nurseries and greenhouses

. Enlarging and would only apply to area under control of the employer. For a WPS farm, imposing the restricted area could affect the scheduling of work activities in areas immediat ely adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application. This may complicate the scheduling of certain work er activities, but is unlikely to completely preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural

establishments.

ENTRY-02. Entry into a restricted area. The proposed requirement specifies that a handler working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area. Since current requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restriction simply clarifies the applicator’s responsibility and is un likely to result in measureable costs.

ENTRY-03 and 04. Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double notification products. During agricultural emergencies, agricultural employers can send workers

into treated areas to conduct critical tasks ev en during the REI. One potential requirement (ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an i ndividual worker could spend in an area treated*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

104 with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02). Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability th at a WPS farm will have an early entry event is about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve double notification products, i.e. , those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. Thus, only a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a product in any given year. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers

if the time limit is reached. Th is will involve some management burden, but the effect is not quantifiable.

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, tasks that would not be of long duration on a small operation.

ENTRY-05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05). The impact of this requirement would be to expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment. This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA developed the following scenario: an establishment may face a problem, which might be addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g. , 25 percent. The inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on those acres, e.g. , five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, including family farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to pesticide labels under the WPS. In this case, EPA calculates that 9.8 percent of farms have early entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop farms, nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-using farms and the assumption that there is an early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications.

Growers most at risk would be those producing sp ecialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and those producing nursery and greenho use crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using pesticides since the exemption to the REI exte nds to family farms only through the WPS. According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including government payments) was $50.5 billion for vege tables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b). From the special tabulation requested from NASS, there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $260,000 per year and a five percent*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

105 loss would be around $13,000. Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss using these figures.

Table 3.3-28. Per-Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY-05.

Action/Material value of production affected

acreage likelihood cost

Five percent yield loss $13,024 25% 9.8% $320.00

Total $320.00

Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers.

Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement. Under this scenario, the expected loss per establishment would be $320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e. , the five percent loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extr apolating to the national level indicates losses of $247 million per year.

ENTRY-06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could address the issue of handler exposure to cholines terase inhibiting pesticides. ENTRY-06 would establish a monitoring program while ENTRY-07 would simply impose a limit on the time

handlers could work with these chemicals.

Washington State’s Department of Labor and Indus tries facilitates a testing program to monitorpesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and Nmethyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to participate in the program, which involves a blo od test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee can decline to participate. ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the handler’s cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such pesticides until levels return to normal.

Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential costs for a U.S. program. The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the Northwest is presented in Table 3.3-29. Washi ngton reports that the voluntary program cost $115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a per-handler cost of $55.14. Based on the description of how the program follows up with an examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e. , those employed on farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region.

The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler’s time that is spent getting tested. Each partic ipating handler must go to a medical center and submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate. EPA assumes this takes about one and a half hours, on average, including travel and wait time. Washington reports that 386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

106 testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow-up tests, which implies that they spend 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As sh own in Table 3.3-29, the expected cost per WPS handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $13.32.

Table 3.3-29. Per-WPS Handler Baseline Cost s for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring

in NW.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0.141 $ 7.76
Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0.141 $ 4.40 Follow-up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2.07 0.027 $ 1.16

cost r , NW

, a

B $ 13.32
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55 for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers. See Appendix A for details. The baseline cost in all other regions is zero.

To estimate national participation in a cholines terase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utili ze pesticides each year. We further estimate that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year. We assume that the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops. Thus, the expected per-WPS handler cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing

cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of follow- up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE

handlers.

The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year.

In theory, a monitoring program would not be expect ed to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If inhibition were seen, a handler could still work w ith other classes of pesticides. Nor would a program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers would likely be available. In practice, howev er, finding another application job or another handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

107 participating Washington handlers showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely.

An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-0 7). The primary cost of this approach would be tracking the time handlers spend with such products. Data are not available for a precise estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the co st as follows. Each handler, including selfemployed handlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average, and about 30 percent of applications by CPHE handlers. Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work wi th ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates the cost of tracking hand lers’ time to be about $4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around $80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches the limit and alternative jobs are not available.



### 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable. Th e potential requirements in this category are intended to improve the use and effi cacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are mostly in additional materials such as additional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit testing. Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping. Some actions or material will be required of all WPS farms that hi re handlers, because they are part of routine preparations. Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually made. Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of

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

108 Table 3.3-30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1

.

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640 02 Eliminate 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 1 58,472 153,8

63 93,133 65,339 60,730 7,437 6,912

05 Contaminated PPE

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

PPE-01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of fit testing. Further, some handlers will under go fit testing because the requirement has been incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers.

The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on-farm under provisions similar to OSHA requirements, includ ing that those using respirators are medically cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening. The actions and materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31. The medical screening consists of a health survey that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large-small crop farms and one handler from large livestock farms growing crops will r outinely obtain the fit test each year, implying about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used pesticides have respirator requirements and grow ers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 percent of those taking the medical screen w ill need a follow-up exam ination, which implies about 13.7 percent of all handlers. The examin ation is expected to take about two hours, including travel and wait time. The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007). Once cleared, the handler takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time.

The material for the fit test costs about a dolla r (OSHA, 2004). As currently required, if the respirator is used, the employer must provide instru ctions on proper use. Actual respirator use is*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

109 likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost-per WPS handler of the requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31.

Table 3.3-31. Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j /M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Initial survey $20.83/hr 0.5 hour 0.595 $ 6.19
Medical evaluation $42.91/hr 5 min 0.595 $ 2.13 Time for follow-up exam $20.83/hr 2 hour 0.137 $ 5.70 Follow-up medical exam $101.00 1 0.137 $ 13.82 Time for fit test, with travel $20.83/hr 1.5 hour 0.595 $ 18.58
Fit test material $1.00 1 0.595 $ 0.59 Employer instructs on

proper use $28.21/hr 6 min 0. 3 47 351 $ 0. 98 99

Handler receives

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0. 3 47 351 $ 0. 7 2 73

cost r , i

, a

P $ 48. 72 74
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due

to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements already apply to commercial enterprises, this cost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost. However, the employer of the CPHE handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the fit test and evaluation. The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60

per year.

EPA estimates that the incremental cost of th is potential requirement would be about $10.6 million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire
handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost.

PPE-02 and 03. Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically damaging levels. Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs employed by a firm that contracts advisory se rvices (PPE-03). The requirement would only apply to employees who are not certified. Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be available under different provisions. Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exception will be negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, coveralls) on rare occasions.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

110 PPE-04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is considering revising the standards that define a cl osed system under which such a substitution is permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed system s now. Others may have a system that is already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some establishments may purchas e a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE. In addition, all entities will be required to keep reco rds of all system maintenance, something that is not currently required under federal regulations, but is required by California.

Given the variability in possible impacts, estimati on of the cost of the potential requirement is difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms and 50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPEand, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and largesmall WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal filters each year. This probabl y overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also assumes that about 20 percent of systems will re quire maintenance each year, entailing costs of $86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherl or Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an action is then modified by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Table 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA’s estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large-small WPS farms. The baseline cost for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year.

Table 3.3-32. Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed
systems.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.67 $ 12.11
Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.13 $ 11.66

cost r,i, a

B $ 43.96
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expected cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and $35.27, respectively. Note that California sy stems are all in compliance with the potential definition of a closed system. However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping.

Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for large and large-small WPS farms to comply with the proposed standard. In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA assumes another 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms already have a system that*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

111 would meet the potential requirement. As show n in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct

maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co In c., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides in a given year.

Table 3.3-33. Per- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed systems, Year 1.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H

r , i ,j

/M

r , i ,j annual frequency Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04
Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 New Closed System $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04
Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.04
Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03

cost P PE

, a

P

$ 177.52

Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA assumptions.

Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA assumes that slightly less than ten percent of al l large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those with closed systems) will have a maintenance ev ent to report. All establishments with closed systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in the file. As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the first year for large and large-small WPS farms. In subsequent years, these farms will not need to purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average across all the affected

WPS farms.

A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple handler enterprises, respectively. The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions about the use of closed systems on these estab lishments. For example, we assume that all CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, one third are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one-third would obtain a new system, and one-third would rely on PPE.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

112 EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $32.5 million for the first year, assuming that all new cl osed systems are purchased immediately. Over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million.
Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about $4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00,
and to CPHEs of $48.00. Note that the aver age impact per establishment includes those establishments unaffected by the change in standards.

PPE-05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated PPE. The proposed revision would specify that co ntaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact.



### 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define expected standards for employers to follow a nd increase the ability of employers and employees to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA characterizes some potential cost impacts. A summar y of the results of the cost analysis of these potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34.

Table 3.3-34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

.

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0

02 Decontamination requirements, early entry

events – workers 33 11 22 3 03 Decontamination requirements

- handlers 434 434 0 0

04 Showers for handler decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636 05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0 06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

SUPPLY-01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that “enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient. This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of

water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is likely that all WPS farms are in compliance with the potential requirement such that the*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

113 incremental cost will be zero. Water would lik ely be supplied from existing wells or delivery systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field.

SUPPLY-02. Quantity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated areas during an REI, the WPS requires “suffici ent” water be available for decontamination and the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gall on per worker would be considered sufficient. The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons. Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. (NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually. This amounts to less than $0.01 per WPS farm per year.

SUPPLY-03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Currently, the WPS requires that “enough” water be available for handlers to use for routine and emergency washing, including emergency eye-flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This potential revision would codify the existing definition of ‘enough’ water for decontamination. The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy manual. As noted in SUPPLY-01, water availability would not generally be a problem.

Supply-04. Provide showers for handler decontamination. This option would require all

establishments with handlers to install showers fo r decontamination purposes. The impact of this requirement would be substantial. Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material

and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities w ould cost about $105,000 (Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000 per WPS farm. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. In practice, most WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all applications themselves or turn to CPHEs. Th e cost for current CPHEs to install showers could be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand for pesticide applications. In the short term, EP A estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs. Some would likely transfer to more general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages. Others would likely find employment with CPHEs, for which demand would in crease. Thus, the final number of jobs lost as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain.

There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not including installation (Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be appropriate for mixing/loading sites on-farm. If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially workers, with an opportunity to clean off any re sidues before returning home, an outdoor shower with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the more substantial facilities described above, but an nualized costs might be less than $1 billion.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

114 SUPPLY-05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working with pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potent ial requirements would require there to be a sustained flow of water. SUPPLY-05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all permanent mixing and loading site s to provide 1.5 liters per minute. There would be little or no impact to this requirement as permanent sites ar e likely to have running water for other purposes such as diluting concentrated pesticides.

An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separa te eyewash station. The average cost of a portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 20 08; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million. Assuming that annual maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate.



### 3.3.9 Emergency Response

The time between an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticid e. Current requirements require “prompt” action in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is considering potential requirements that would more precisely define standards for emergency response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as explained below.

EMERG-01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes (EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02). Estimatio n of a precise cost of this requirement is not possible as field conditions ar e highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies existing requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers will be identifying the pesticide to which an individual is exposed. In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, especially if workers are exposed to pesticide dr ift from an application performed on a different

farm.

EMERG-03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes (EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04). Neither potential time frame is likely to result in measurable impacts. In particular, identificatio n of the pesticide to which the individual is exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

115 This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section. Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requirements for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pesticide exposure, both from reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day-to-day exposure.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

116 

## Chapter 4. Costs and Benefi ts of Potential Requirements

EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that w ill provide benefits to workers and pesticide handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessi ve costs to employers. Out of the potential requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing.

Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements.

Identifier Title INFORM: Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification

TRAIN-02 Immediate Tr aining 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 ***

117 Identifier Title MITIGATE: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Response

SUPPLY-01 Routine Worker De contamination Requirements SUPPLY-02 Decontamination Requirements for Early Entry Events SUPPLY-03 Decontamination Requirements for Handlers SUPPLY-05 Water Flow Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing EMERG-01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency EMERG-03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of different requirement options in terms of providin g better information, greater protection, and/or more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the agricultural workers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular.

In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory development process ( e.g. , farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers, and other federal agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-benefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, for example, equity considerations ( e.g. , potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the feasibility of implementing a requirement given st ate regulatory experiences. A discussion of all these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule.



### 4.1 Training Options

The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take appropriate steps to protect themse lves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise.



### 4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training

EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to their entry into a pesticide-treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two-day grace period (TRAIN-02). Requiring employers to provi de the complete training to workers before they enter a treated area would ensure that workers understand how to protect themselves when working in pesticide-treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fa ll into this category. 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 ***

118 complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this propo sal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers will receive full training before they enter pr eviously treated areas. These changes should decrease the number of occupational pesticide-rela ted illnesses because workers would be better informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area.

EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.8 0 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different times. The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace period), is estimated to cost $7. 20 10 per year per WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers themselves may bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the amount they pick rather than by the hour.



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

EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN-03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years. This means that employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at appropriate intervals. Pesticide safety educators have noted that “repeating basic safety messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007).” Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training.

Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. Thus, while both alternatives would be an improvement over the current five year cycle, annual training is likely to provide substa ntially greater benefits than biennial training.

Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about
$ 7.90 8.10 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17.00 per year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler training is estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively.

While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more frequent training. As noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Moreover, training reinforces many of the other WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs.

The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel. This option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see Chapter 2.2.1). EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms (those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15. 90 40 per year under TRAIN-03 to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

119 $ 13.60 12.40 per year. However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive training, possibly for several years.



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

Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule

amendments and aff ects multiple areas of the proposed changes. A major goal of this expansion is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS. The new training reinforces EPA’s strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure risks while putting less emphasis on pesticid e-specific information that could lead to complacency in some cases and excess concern in others.

EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pe sticide safety training to include additional topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed requirements for early entry no tification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard communication materials, especially the SDS.

The additional information is anticipated to ex tend worker and handler training by about 15 minutes. The longer training sessions would co st an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year for worker training and an estimated $3.20 per WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for handler training.

EPA also considered alternatives that would ha ve supported the use of crop sheets instead of SDS as the primary means of hazard communication. These alternatives (TRAIN-07 and 15) would be slightly more expensive since explai ning the details of crop sheets would be more complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively.

Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to justify the costs of development, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used. Providing such information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages.



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

EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS-trained handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving training to those qua lified to train certified applicators or those who have completed a “Train-the-Trainers” program. An alternative evaluated here is to limit training only to those who have completed a Train-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09). As discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

120 may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to train. The unique characteristics and demogra phics of the farmworker population, especially language and literacy issues, implies that there ar e substantial benefits to having trainers that have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population. These trainers,

i.e. , those completing the Train-the-Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety information, the knowledge of adult education principles, and the communication skills needed to reach low-literacy audiences. Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding and retention of pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the princi ples outlined in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure to themselv es and their family members. Trainers of certified applicators will have th e technical knowledge, but may no t have the skills to convey the information to a farmworker audience. The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about $2.80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the provision will be delayed for two years.



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

EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler (TRAIN-16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS farms about $4.10 per year for worker training and less than $1.00 for handler training. For CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the co st of handler training is about $3.00 per year. Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years. Information from regulatory agencies indicates that a two year ti me frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify training through records retained by the employer

. , especially if training is to be conducted annually. Therefore EPA concludes that , if training occurs more frequently than is currently required, the longer, five-year retention period provid es little or no additional benefits over the two-year period.



### 4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification

There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS. The purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they change employers, thus reducing duplicative training. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems with the current voluntary program for traini ng verification in which workers and handlers receive cards they can show to subsequent employ ers. Primary among the problems is that cards may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate verification. These problems reduce employers’ ab ility to rely on the cards and, therefore, the ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the voluntary program to justify the expenditure. Eliminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated,*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

121 in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification (TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program.

However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable. The information will thus be more reliable. The pr oposed record keeping requ irements discussed in Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting do cumentation. EPA also notes that a majority of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at harvest as these workers are typically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. Thus, the time these workers spend in training – especially repeated training – reduces their

wages.

Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time required to fill them out individually. In additi on to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with sufficient information for their records, while veri fication card of the sort typically used would not. If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain all the information, they are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training.



### 4.2 Hazard Communication Options

The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as “central posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following information: location and description of treated areas, the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and da te the pesticide is to be applied, and the REI, specified in duration ( e.g. , hours or days). Posting is required for 30 days following the expiration of the REI.

EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult to make changes to the information prior to be ginning the application and to ensure that the information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to

workers and handlers.



### 4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

122 EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information, available to workers, handlers, and their re presentatives upon request (HAZCOM-01). At the same time, this revision would eliminate the requ irement for the application records to be posted

at a central location. In add ition, the application in formation would add th e start and end times of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 percent of applications.

Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps that workers and handlers can take to protect themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leadin g to increased potential for exposure. In addition, work ers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an effective means to communicate with employees.

However, this detailed information would be im portant in the event a worker or handler is poisoned and needs medical attention, for example. It is the healthcare provider who most needs to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment. The proposed change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application

information for workers and handlers



### 4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pestic ide-specific Hazard Communication

Materials

EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the product label in addition to the current application record (HAZCOM-02). The cost of this requirement is estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3. One alternative would be to add only the pesticide label to the curr ent information (HAZCOM- 03), which would cost about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are based on posting the information

at a central location. A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM-04), estimated to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm. This cost estimates is based on the distribution of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area.

As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations and inappropriate concern in others. A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is particularly valuable in case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provi de the bulk of this value. While the pesticide label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for safe use and handling. The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and

on treatment.



### 4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

123 As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years (HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. $7.60 per WPS farm), However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more than two years provides little or no additional benefit.



### 4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets

EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop-specific hazard sheets along with the labels for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alternative approach to hazard communication under HAZCOM-04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know how to interpret and use the crop sheets. As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not

clear that this additional inform ation provides substantial additional benefits. While this

additional information is useful in certain ci rcumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse workers with complex pesticide application in formation that would be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages. EPA estimates this requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for ten years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be substantial as they would have to be location-specific.



### 4.3 Notification Options

In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirements, the WPS also requires that specific information be provided in certain situations. This information is often necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk.



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

The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and posted warnings. NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an
estimated cost of $ 10.5 11.1 million per year, and NOTIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7. 3 9 million per year. On a per-farm basis,
estimated to cost are about $ 26.80 28.30 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $ 18.70 20.10 per year for NOTIFY-02. A WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is approximately $1.40 per worker.

Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor contributing to reports of acute occupational pe sticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers (Calvert et al ., 2008). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

124 

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

The current rule requires posting of the warnin g sign for all applications in enclosed space production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries). EPA proposes to relax this requirement and allow employers the options of oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect.

Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without increasing workers’ risk of exposure.



### 4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification

To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requiring that agricultural employers create and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 years (NOTIFY-05). Given the frequency of pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required. As explained in Chapter 3, these provisions would cost about $20. 0 2 to $20. 3 5 million per year, respectively.

The addition of the proposed recordkeeping comp onent for oral notification could encourage employers to ensure workers receive accurate information, which in turn could lead to fewer workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure. EPA has insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing requirements and that there would be high benef its associated with these alternatives. Posting for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at

lower cost.



### 4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

EPA is proposing minor modifications to the curr ent WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket “Keep Out.” The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be about $0.25 per WPS farm per year.

EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol, but more critically considered requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field. As a result, the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

125 

### 4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated area, or an area affording maximum visibility an d when treated areas are adjacent to worker housing. EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a

visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area (NOTIFY-08). This is a clarifying revision an d EPA anticipates negligible impacts. It will largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations.

EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY-09 ). EPA estimates that this provision would
cost about $ 648 660 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits.



### 4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry

tasks

The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no-contact,” “short-term,” “irrigation,” or “agricultural emergency activities” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker exits the field. EPA is proposing that agricu ltural employers provide more detailed information to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional notification includes the type of contact permit ted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with which workers must be provided. NOTIFY-10 would require that this information be provided orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annually or about $1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY-11 would require the information be provided both or ally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year.

Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in workers (Calvert et al. , 2008). Providing workers with more information about how to protect themselves from pesticide exposure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. Given the differences in language and frequent low Englis h literacy rates among farmworkers, written information may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information.



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

Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

126 signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12). The estimated national cost for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average. Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm per year, but the longer period appears to provide no significant benefits. According to discussions with state agencies, a two-year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs.



### 4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display

The WPS currently requires agricultural establishm ents to post a pesticide safety poster listing basic pesticide safety information. With NOTI FY-14, the Agency is proposing to augment the required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information, including contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agen cy. This additional information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e.

, recognizing pesticide poisoning and knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure incident. If there are any changes in contact information, posters must be updated promptly. It is critical that such information be readily available because workers and handlers are unlikely to retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally.

The incremental cost of NOTIFY-14 would be the time required to include this information on existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is estimated to be about $108,000 or about $0.30 per WPS farm per year.



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

Currently, safety information must be displaye d at a central location on the WPS farm, along with any application-specific information (see HAZCOM-01, Section 4.2.1). EPA proposes that employers maintain the central safety display and also display the information at decontamination sites. NOTIFY-15 governs s ites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites. The value of displaying the info rmation in a main area th rough which workers will frequently pass is to reinforce pesticide trai ning. However, it is also important that the information be displayed at sites where the inform ation will be most useful, that is, along with decontamination supplies.

The cost of these requirements comes from the cost of new posters or displays and the labor to post them. On an annual basis, the cost fo r worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is
estimated to be $ 1.9 2.0 million or $ 4.90 5.10 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by the size of the opera tion. The smallest WPS farms, for example, with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the average. The cost for handler decont amination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers.

An alternative (NOTIFY-17) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI warning signs. Although the additional safety display would help to reinforce safety training because they would increase the number of times they were seen, there is no particular value to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

127 associating the displays with REI warnings as acci dental exposure can occur in many situations, not just entry into a recently treated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to
be about $4. 7 8 million annually, or around $ 11.80 12.10 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly

double the cost of NOTIFY-15 and 16 combined.



### 4.3.10 NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators

The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about pesticide applications before the application takes place and immediately upon any change, including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, minor changes in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REI would not have to be reported. No costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the resolution of regulatory uncertainty.



### 4.4 Age Requirement Options

The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered by the regulation. This is problematic for two reasons. First, young people may be more susceptible to pesticides because their systems are still developi ng. Second, adolescents generally take more risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have substantial benefits, specifically workers performing tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide handlers where exposure may be high.

Under the proposal, these age restrictions do not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.



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

Early entry activities are allowed under certain situations, including agricultural emergencies where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop. The fact that the REI has not expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding adolescents from these activities protects their more susceptible systems from this exposure. Reduced exposure can reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic and developmental effects that may be associated with children’s exposure to pesticides.

EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in early entry activities (AGE-01), which is estimated to cost about $ 163 156 ,000 per year, or $0.40 per year per WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of employing adults at a higher wage rate for these activities. However, the cost of this provisio n is actually one of scheduling available workers rather than employing different workers. This option would potentially protect about 19,000 workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8. 60 20 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a minimum age of 18 (AGE -01), is estimated to cost $ 760 723 ,000 per year, or $1. 90 80*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

128 per year per WPS farm. This option would cover about 86,900 workers under the age of 18 at a
cost of $8. 70 30 per adolescent. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the two options is very similar.

Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family exemption would not be prohibited from engagi ng in early entry activ ities under the EPA’s proposed option.



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

Similarly, EPA considered two options for a minimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE03, a prohibition on persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides and AGE-04, which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 18 years of age and older.

The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work di rectly with pesticides, there is greater potential for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons younger than 16 from handling pesticides (AGE-03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000 adolescents currently handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 18 (AGE-04), would protect about 4,800 adolescents, includi ng around 200 adolescents working for CPHEs.

The total cost of the proposed minimum age is estimated to be $466,000 per year and would likely only cost WPS farms about $2.40 per year, on average. Given the small number of adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticid es, the cost is about $460 per adolescent. The estimated cost of limiting handling to persons ov er 18 years of age is $3.1 million per year nationally. This would cost an average WPS establishment about $11.20 annually and a CPHE about $317 annually, although the latter estimate in particular is likely to be highly conservative because of the number of hours adolescents are assumed to work. Considering that nearly 4,800 adolescents may be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $ 630 per adolescent. The cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat less better for the proposed option. However, the estimate for the mi nimum age of 18 is heavily influenced by the assumptions about the number of hours worked by adolescents in CPHEs.

Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in handling activities under the EPA’s proposed option.



### 4.5 Entry Restriction Options

Existing entry restrictions are primarily aimed at protecting farm workers during and after pesticide applications. The goal of the revi sions is to strengthen those protections.



### 4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

While the WPS currently includes requirements for entry-restricted areas around the treated area during applications to nurseries and in greenhous es, there are no entry-restricted areas during*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

129 applications on farms and forests. Currently, a worker on a farm may be assigned to work in an area immediately adjacent to the treated area wher e a pesticide application is taking place. Many incidents of drift and off-target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is cited in a SENSOR-Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor contributing to pesticide poisoning incidents reported among agricultural workers from 1998-2005 (Calvert et al. , 2008).

Additionally, the current ru le requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any wo rker or other person, ot her than an appropriately trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regulatory language fails to provide handlers with a clear course of action if they observe a person, other than a trained and properly equipped handler, to be present in the entry-restricted area.

EPA proposes ENTRY-01, the establishment of entry-restricted areas during applications for farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry-restricted areas for all WPS-covered workers is a simple way to improve worker safe ty. A second revision, ENTRY-02, specifies that handlers must “cease application” if a non-handler enters the treated and entry-restricted areas. The revisions entail minor regulatory improvem ents and clarifications while resulting in potentially significant impacts on reducing incidents of worker exposure to drift. The cost estimated for restricting entry to perimeters ad jacent to an area being treated is negligible, because workers can be reassigned temporarily while the application takes place.



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

As described above (Section 4.3.6), the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that

certain activities considered critical to successful agricultural production can take place during a REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions a llow entry into an area under an REI for activities with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigati on activities, certain short-term activities, and activities associated with agricultural emerge ncies. The “limited contact” and irrigation exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but existing regulations do not establish a limit on the duration workers are allowed in the treated area for agricultural emergencies. Since length of exposure is a factor in the amount of residue a person may contact, limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive.

EPA considered two options. ENTRY-03 would impose a four-hour time limit in a 24-hour timeframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while ENTRY-04 would impose an eight-hour time limit fo r the agricultural emergency exception if a product requiring double notification ( both oral and posting) was utilized.

As explained in Section 3.3, neith er option entails measurable costs, given the rarity that double notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emergency, and the possibility of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY-03, which would provide some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY-04, is proposed.

Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated exposures (ENTRY-05). Agricultural production is subject to many weather-related risks and*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

130 problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estima tes that eliminating the exception to the REI could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production.



### 4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

EPA considered requiring a monitoring progra m for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers working regularly with certain organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. If a handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, they would be restricted from further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $95 per handler involved in the program, or $15.2 million annually.

The Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold of concern; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondary benefit of the program, according to the Washington experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application practices, identified by handlers showing some cholinesterase inhi bition, but not sufficient to warrant removal from further handling tasks. Most recommendations stemming from Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to improve handler training and encourage the proper use of PPE on all agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. Together, the training and PPE proposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced by all handlers, including the sel ect population of handlers that are at risk for cholinesterase inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem after the exposure has occurred.

EPA also considered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N-methyl carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30-day period (ENTRY-07). This option is estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. However, the benefits of the approach are highly uncertain. Data to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available.



### 4.6 PPE Options

Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be criti cal for reducing exposure by routes such as inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate equipment and the situations in which it is re quired. Provisions in the WPS support the label directions by setting criteria to ensure that PP E is of good quality and is used appropriately. Potential revisions reflect the goal of enhancing protections for workers and handlers.



### 4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handle rs using products requiring respirator

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

131 Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, and application. The current WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ respirators fitcorrectly and that the handler is trained to use it, but the regulation does not explicitly require fittesting. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not fit properly may result in preventable handler exposure to pesticides.

EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing into WPS requirements. The proposal will establish a consiste nt approach for all employers to follow that will improve protection when a handler uses a pesticide product that requires a respirator. OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specifi c standard for fitting the respirator on the user, instruction on how to recognize when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to take if this occurs. There is also a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be about $82 per handler that obtains a fit test or $10.6 million per year. The average annual cost
would be about $54.40 for WPS farms that hire handlers. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA guidelines currently, given the nature of the business.

Ensuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness, ultimately leading to a reduction in occupational pes ticide-related illnesses.



### 4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting

under CCAs

The current PPE exemptions for employees working under the supervision of certified crop advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while the supervisor may be unaware of the level of contact the employee has with treated surfaces. This is different from the ability of the CCA to make appropriate judgments regarding personal ri sk and the revisions will retain the exemption for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI.

The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemption for the employees of WPS farms (PPE-02) and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE-03) who are not certified but are working under a CCA. Such employees would be required to use the label specified PPE and have available decontamination supplies and emergency assistan ce would be provided in case of a suspected pesticide-related illness.

As discussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associat ed with these revisions is likely negligible because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for uncertified employees (Jones and Smith, 2006).



### 4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions

The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using a closed system for mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, however, does not provide specific criteria for*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

132 an acceptable closed system. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs may have inadequate systems resu lting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the area. The proposed revision, PPE-04, would estab lish specific criteria for closed systems that are enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards are based on California criteria. Properly designed and employed closed systems afford superior protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment

EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $6.9 million per year, with average annualized costs of about $25 for large and large-small WPS farms (those making more than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than $750,000 in annual sales), and about $48 per year for CPHEs. The costs include the purchase of new systems by some firms or fa rms and some increase in costs fo r the more frequent utilizationof the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of costeffectiveness, considering the number of handlers, including self-employed commercial handlers and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year.



### 4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable

The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly. PPE can become contaminated with pesticides from ro utine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA prop oses to require that contaminated PPE, if it cannot be properly cleaned, be rendered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE may be reused if not destroyed.

This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary exposure resulting from the wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are di scarded in a trash bin, a person in need of additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment apart would make it less likely that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the pesticide residues.

The cost is expected to be negligible. The employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under the existing requirements and there is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer

to render the PPE unusable.



### 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

On-site decontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The WPS and associated guidance specifies th e materials that should be available.



### 4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: D econtamination supplies for workers*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

133 The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in fields previously treated with pesticides, but do es not specify the quantity of water that is necessary. Existing guidance indicates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine situations. SUPPLY-01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. No cost is expected with this revision.

Currently, the same standard applies to worker s engaged in activities in fields during a REI. Given the potential for higher levels of residu e remaining on plant material, accidental contact ( e.g. , a worker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in

routine situations. SUPPLY-02 would increase the amount of water that must be available to three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA esti mates the cost for the additional water would be less than $0.01 per WPS farm. Wate r is generally available at negligible pumping cost or from a water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in comparison.



### 4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decont amination supplies for handlers

Similar to the situation for workers, WPS requ ires water be available for handlers without specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates three gallons per handler is enough for routine washing, and emergency decontamination. SUPPLY-03 would incorporate this guidance to eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above, no cost is expected with this revision.

EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for handlers, SUPPLY-04. The benefits of this option are highly uncertain. Provisions for emergency decontamination, including eye rinsing, are already in place or proposed (see SUPPLY-05 below). Showering prior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting pesticide residues to the handler’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would routinely utilize shower s even if they were available. Re presentatives of agricultural employers on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experien ce, when showers are available that handlers opt not to use them. There are a number of reasons people may not avail themselves of shower facilities, including the need for a change of cl othes or a simple preference for showering in the privacy of their own home. Some cultural beliefs and practices may factor into this decision not to utilize existing shower facilities (Arcury et al . 2001).

Requiring employers to provide showers would be costly; the estimated cost of building each shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, th is would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for construction alone, with WPS farms bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for
CPHEs to install showers would be about $2.5 billion. This estimate does not include the cost of maintenance. SBREFA panelists commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS requirement, many agricultural employers would avoid the high cost of compliance by choosing not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower facilities for handlers would cause employers to av oid hiring handlers and could lead to job loss of over 150,000 handlers in the agricultural industry . As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher-paid positions. Less expensive options, such as simple outdoor showers with privacy screens, might be used. But such options are even less likely to be used by an employ ee than a more complete facility.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

134 The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN- 14, including take-home exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed clarification to the eye-rinsing requirements in SUPPLY-05 were also considered in comparing the relative costs and benefits of requiring showers for handlers. These provisions can effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost.



### 4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing

The current rule requires employers to provide water to handlers for use in case of an ocular exposure to a pesticide when the pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have indicated that, even with protective eyewear, ha ndlers, particularly those mixing and loading pesticides, can be exposed from splashes that enter the eye. This can result in serious injury to the eye.

For similar ocular risks in industrial situatio ns, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY-05, to adopt these requirements for establishments with permanent pe sticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would typically have a

source of water.

An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved to temporary sites, i.e. , fields to be treated. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, there are some drawbacks to the use of portable stations. According to state field personnel, they are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is also not clear that they are substantially more effe ctive than the traditional water bottle in rinsing the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. EPA estimates the cost to be about $13.6 million per year nationally, or over $55 per year per farm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 (Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that maintenance costs are ten percent of the purchase price. The cost estimate also assumes that the stations last ten years, which may overestimate their durability.



### 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” transportation to a health care facility in the event of a pesticide exposure emergency. The term “prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in seeking medical attention during an emergency may endanger the exposed worker or handler. The time between an accident and receipt of medical care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning.

OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if the inju ry is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differences between a WPS establishment and typical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

135 agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker and to provide transportation.

EPA proposes EMERG-01 and EMERG-03, which would require employers to begin transport for workers and handlers to a medical facility within thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. The employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable information, to the treating medical personnel (see HAZCOM-02). EPA also considered requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transportation to workers and handlers within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG-02 and 04). A shorter time frame is clearly preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impose measurable costs, particularly as cell phones become more readily available and service becomes more reliable.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

136 

## Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the worker protection standards. EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $ 6 1.9 62.1 and
$72. 4 9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer se ries of data that show slower declines over time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $63. 6 0 to $ 7 4.1 73.8 million per year. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 0.8 61.2 and $73. 1 6 million per year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the proposed training and not ification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major driver of the total cost is the large number of establishments that are covered by the WPS, nearly 400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 comme rcial pesticide application fi rms including self-employed commercial applicators. Given a three percent discount rate, the cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of $750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $ 3 5 0 340 and $400 per year. The incremental cost to small WPS farms is estimated to be between $130 and $150 per year. For small farms, the cost represents 0.1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the WPS are those agricultural establishments, including crop farms, livestock operations with crop production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides. The impact on family farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost about $60 less than $40 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 farms out of about 500,000 family farms that use pesticides. Commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the WPS, with an annual incremental cost between $170 and $190, although self-employed commercial applicators will face costs of only about $80 per year. Forestry op erations are also covered by WPS, but we lack the data on co-occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities (hand labor) on these establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries.

These costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $25 to $30 per year per employee, not including self-employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family farms) who benefit from some of the revisions.

The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for two reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed temporarily for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications to specific fields) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

137 those farms. In reality, most WPS requirements cover farmworkers who engage in hand labor activities associated with crop production.

A more realistic estimate would consider that mu ch of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that workers are not involved in hand labor activities. For example, the primarily livestock operations that also produce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like corn and soybean that are highly mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only the handler requirements would apply. They would be required to:

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training;

 Maintain records of pesticide applications;

 Provide handler pesticide safety training;

 Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies;

 Comply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and

 Comply with all PPE requirements. However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities would not be required to:

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training;

 Provide worker pesticide safety displays;

 Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor

 Provide notification of REIs, either orally or by posting. If we separate the 153,000 primarily livestock farms from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $ 58.8 59.2 million per year. This estimate is still likel y biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively conservative assumptions about the imp acts of individual requirements and includes many crop farms that will not be using hand labor in production.

A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 farms producing field crops, such as grains, oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, in the same category as the predominantly livestock operations. Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WPS. In this scenario, which assumes over 84,000 farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, work ers and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total
incremental costs are estimated to be between $39. 9 1 and $ 4 4 .6 43.7 million annually. It is

difficult to assess the extent of bias in this es timate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the individual requirements, but many farm s that mainly produce field crops will also produce fruit and vegetable crops that utilize hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily produce fruit and vegetable crops will also produce field crops and some portion of their work force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered farms we include nearly 11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or tobacco as our categorization of the data does not allow us to separate farms of th ese types. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco production often entails hand labor activities, so we include them in the covered farms.

It should be noted that, as the scenarios focu s on a subset of farms, the estimated per-farm impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farm s, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ more workers per farm than do livestock operati ons. If we consider the livestock operations to 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 ***

138 Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $180 to $190 per year, on average, while the estimated average impact to small ‘handler only’ farms is less than $50 per year. Large crop farms, in contrast, are estimated to bear additional cost of $ 3 7 0 375 to $440 per year, on average, which is slightly higher than the ra nge presented in this chapter. The estimated incremental cost to small crop farms is $140 to $ 160 per year, very close to that associated with the upper bound of the national incremental cost.

This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisions to the WPS that were selected on the basis of the costs, estimated in Chapter 3, and be nefits, described in Chapter 2, as well as other considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of

revisions as this would not contribute additiona l information to the deci sion-making process. The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requirements, discussed in Chapter 4, are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. For example, the relative net benefits of annual to biennial training (TRA IN-03 and 04, see Section 4.1.2) would not be substantially altered if paired with written inform ation about a pesticide if entering a field under a REI (NOTIFY-11) instead of oral informatio n (NOTIFY-10) (see Section 4.3.6). Pesticide safety training provides workers with generic in formation about potential effects of pesticides and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to forget such lessons over time. Providing specific information at the time of potential exposure makes the training lessons actionable, but merely making the specific information more tangible will not make two-year old generic lessons more memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected revisions to alternative packages of the rejected options would be redundant.

To formalize this mathematically, let the net benefi ts of Option A be designated NB(A). Then, if

NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and

NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then

NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any other combination for the two components.

Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, that is, the option of making no changes to existing requirements.

This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 presents the estimation where Section 5.2.1 addresses the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 presents the costs of the proposed hazard communication and notification components, Section 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements, and Section 5.2.4 addresses the proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up the components and presents the total estimated cost of the proposed rule. Section 5.3 then discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 5.4 presents the analysis of small business impacts.



### 5.1 General Methodology*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

139 The most straightforward approach to estimating th e cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs of the individual regulations contained therein. While largely independent of each other, the cost of a suite of regulations is not necessarily th e sum of the costs of individual regulations, however. In some cases, there is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of application information. Agricultural employers are required to have the information available for employees and to retain the information in th eir records, but the same document can be used for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from

the total.

In other cases, there is overlap without comp lete duplication as, for example, when one regulation requires additional content on a sign, which increases the material cost, and another regulation requires more frequent use of signs. These cases require a more complicated adjustment in which common costs are subtracted ( e.g. , the cost for the lower number of signs), but additional costs must be included ( e.g. , the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker and handler training, the interactions between increased frequency and increased content (duration) are particularly complex and the simplest approach is to re-estimate the incremental costs for a subset of the regulations before summing them with the other regulations.

That said, the simple sum of the proposed revisions is $ 63.7 65.1 million dollars, which is slightly

lower than within the estimated range of the total cost.

The general methodology for estimating the cost of a suite of individual requirements is similar to that for the potential requirements. We begin by estimating the cost per actor of the suite of requirements by summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that may be more stringent than the current federal standard. Actors, again, are the various establishments, i.e. , farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their employees.

Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

ܿݐݏ݋ ோ,a ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧

௥ ൅

െ ⁄ ෍ ቎෍ ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௦,a,௝ ௑

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ൅෍ܿ

௠ ∙ ܯ ௦,a,௠ ௑

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠ ቏

௦∈௥

where cost R, a

X

t is the expected annual cost for the pro posed requirements in protective category R = training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emergency preparedness, and decontamination supply. All other variables are as previously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, baseline, and s  r indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element in regulation r , which duplicates or adds to the costs in r . Duplicate costs arise when different regulations require the same activity or material, e.g. , a document or a sign. Additional costs arise if different regulations increase costs in different ways, e.g. , requiring more information in one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

140 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ஻

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions.

ܥܰ ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܴܥ

ோ,௜ ௑

௧
௜

Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. As with the individual requirements, we use a ten-year time horizon.

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

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

National incremental cost, PV ( NIC R ), is calculated the same way.

Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

ܥܫܣ ோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ ோ ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

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

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

ܸܲ ሺ ܴܥܫ ௜ ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ

ோ,௜ ൯

ோ

Again, this is done for national level cost, as well as for annualized costs.

Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of entity.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

141 ܥܧ ோ,௘ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,௔ ௑ ൈ ܰ ௔,௘

a

where EC R,e

X

is entity cost, N a,e is the number of actors per entity, and other variables are as previously defined. An entity is an establishment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment and the workers, by type, in its employ. We then calculate the PV of costs over a ten-year time horizon, assuming that the number of workers will not cha nge for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the effect of spreading the cost of any required investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment.

Step 8. Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories.

ܥܫܧ
௘ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܥܧ

ோ,௘ ௉ െ ܥܧ ோ,௘ ஻

ோ

For the purpose of the per-entity analysis, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained information on the average number of workers employed by various types and sizes of operations. Size is based on annual revenues, where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gross sales and a small feedlot makes less than $2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1-1 pres ents the characteristics used for the per-entity analysis.

Table 5.1-1. Average Number of Workers and Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size.

Farm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers
Large ≥ $750,000 20.0 2 Small < $750,000 3.6 0.41

Large-Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1

Medium-Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3.2 0 Small-Small < $10,000 2.5 0

1 Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots into large-small entities with annual revenue be tween $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium-small entities with annual revenue between $50,000 an d $500,000, and small-small entities with annual revenue less than $50,000.

Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater number of workers than do small farms. This distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farms producing oilseeds and grains where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseries also employ a large number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for certain seasons. Temporary workers also likely explain how small-small farms, with annual sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

142 provisions, especially the notification require ments, only apply if the worker is on the establishment during application, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI.

EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throughout this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per year. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one

or two handlers could make or assist in this number of applications, especially as the employer is likely to be an applicator and as commercial applicators are likely to be hired for applications of some of the more hazardous pesticides such as soil fumigants.



### 5.2 Cost Estimation

This section presents th e estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other components are presented in more summary fashion. Details of the estimation can be found in Appendix B.



### 5.2.1 Training Component

As an example, we explain the estimation of costs associated with training requirements in some

detail.

The proposed changes to the training requirements consist of several options pertaining to worker training: TRAIN-02, Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions; TRAIN-03, Annual worker training; TRAIN-06, E xpanded worker training content (increased duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN-08, Stricter requirements for worker trainers; and TRAIN-10, Record keeping for two years. It also includes several options pertaining to handler training: TRAIN-12, Annual handler training; TRAIN-14, Ex panded handler training content (increased duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN-16, Record keeping for two years. EPA is also proposing to require employers to provi de verification of training, i.e. , a copy of the training register, to their employees, TRAIN-20.

Step 1. Calculate the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

ܿݐݏ݋ ோ,a ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧

௥ ൅

െ ⁄ ෍ ቎෍ ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௦,a,௝ ௑

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ൅෍ܿ

௠ ∙ ܯ ௦,a,௠ ௑

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠ ቏

௦∈௥

for X = proposed and baseline.

Table 5.2-1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

143 across farms, we modify the baseline for TRAIN-03, Annual Training, along the lines of that shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a-21. Otherwise, there are clearly common baselines for the differing worker training and ha ndler training elements. The proposed requirements merely extend current practices in different ways, e.g. , in the content, which de termines the duration of the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08 all represent the same baseline for WPS establishm ents, which entail the provision of worker training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from the total. Similarly, TRAIN-12 and 14 represen t the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide handlers and the cost of TRAIN-14 is simply subtracted from the total.

Table 5.2-1. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor (WPS Farms), Year 1 Requirement Large WPS

Farm Large-Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

TRAIN-02 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 0.00

TRAIN-03 36.15 1 0.93 11.97 1 0.93 11.97 0.00

TRAIN-06 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 0.00

TRAIN-08 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 15. 23 29 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-14 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum 105.8 8 106.06 67.8 8 69.10 56.6 2 57.84 48.18 Duplicate Costs
TRAIN-02, 06, 08 duplicate TRAIN-03 45. 69 87 45. 69 87 45. 69 87 0.00

TRAIN-14 duplicate

of TRAIN-12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

cost TRAIN ,a

B 48.17 16.5 6 17.60 1 0.93 11.97 24.09

cost TRAIN ,a

B

Ca

l 81. 12 14 34.13 35.71 16.39 17.95 44. 68 70
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The last row of Table 5.2-1 presents the total for the California baseline. California already requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records to be kept for handler training. See Appendix B.1.

Table 5.2-2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, we present the common baseline for multiple requirements, rather than repeat them. The main difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program (TRAIN-18) and the extended training required in California.

Table 5.2-2. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor (Employees)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

144 Requirement WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler
South, Southwest
TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00
TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.53 0.35 0.37

cost TRAIN ,a

B 3.92 5.48 5.32 California
TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 5.04 0.00 0.00
TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.53 1.08 1.13

cost TRAIN ,a

B 5.56 22.46 21.80 Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest
TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00
TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.26 0.26 0.28

cost TRAIN ,a

B 3.66 5.39 5.22 Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West
TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00
TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00

cost TRAIN ,a

B 3.40 5.12 4.94
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The same process applies to the cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for ease, EPA firsts re-estimates the per-actor cost for worker training, covered by TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08, and for handler training covered by TRAIN-12 and 14. The proposed worker training requirements include immediate trai ning with limited exceptions, annual training, increased training content (duration), and heightened standard for trainers. Because of the requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newly hired employees, EPA assumes that a large WP S farm will conduct an average of 3. 2 3 trainings per year, in lieu of 2.4 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of

1. 15 21 trainings per year, up from 0. 7 8 sessions in the baseline. As for TRAIN-08 individually, EPA assumes that 85 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 15 percent by people who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program. These percentages are multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two required trainers. The perfarm cost for the revised worker tr aining is estimated to be about $ 90 95 per year for large farms
and $ 33 34 per year for small farms (Table 5.2-3). Record keeping costs, TRAIN-10, are similarly adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm

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

145 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. 692 827 $ 76.47 80.31Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0. 475 499 $ 13.49 14.17

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 89.96 94.48

Small WPS Farm Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.980 1.028 $ 27.83 29.19Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0. 173 181 $ 4.91 5.15

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 32.74 34.34
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The per-worker unit cost is similarly estimated to be $9.43, as shown in Table 5.2-4. Considering the expanded cont ent and annual training requirement, workers will spend 45 minutes of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be trained each year, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to immediate training and leave employment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that about five percent of workers will fall under the exception, although mo st will receive full training within a couple of days. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis.

Table 5.2-4. Per-worker Costs for proposed worker training requirements. Action/Material wage/price unit time/quantity probability cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 45 min 0.903 9.09 Receive Safety Information (delayed training) $13.43/hr 10 min 0.048 0.11

Provide Safety Information $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23 Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 9.43
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the trainings. The combined costs are shown in Table 5.2-5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As noted in Chapter 3.3, the training cost borne by the establishment will depend on the number of handlers employed. The probability that a WPS farm holds a training session will increase in comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that

there will be four handler traini ngs for every five large WPS farm s and one handler training for every two large-small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the probability the training is led by a particular category of trainer, which is unchanged from the

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

146 Table 5.2-5. Per-Establishment Co sts 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 $ 4.24Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03

Training by Certified Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.608 $17.15

cost r ,a

P $24.43 Large-small Establishments Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.070 $ 2.65Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89

Training by Certified Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72

cost r ,a

P $ 15.27
Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The combined effect of the handler training will result in per-firm costs of $41.75 for CPHEs, assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year, on average. The per-handler unit costs are estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers, which is simply the wage for one hour spent in training.

Table 5.2-6 presents the per-establishment unit costs and their sum, given the new unit costs estimated for the combined worker training requirements and the combined handler training requirements.

Table 5.2-6. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor (Establishments) Regulation Large WPS

Farm Large-Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

TRAIN-02, 03, 06,

08 89.96 94.48 32.74 34.34 32.74 34.34 0.00

TRAIN-10 10.90 11.45 4. 09 29 4. 09 29 0.00 TRAIN-12, 14 24.43 15.27 0.00 41.75

TRAIN-16 2.49 2.49 0.00 2.65

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

cost TRAIN ,a

P 127.77 132.84 54.58 56.38 36.83 38.63 44.40
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Finally, Table 5.2-7 presents the compliance costs per employee for the proposed requirements. Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more frequent trainings are required by TRAIN-03 for workers and TRAIN-10 for handlers.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

147 Table 5.2-7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor (Employees) Regulation WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler
TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 9.43 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.13 0.00 0.00
TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.37 0.34 0.36

cost TRAIN ,a

P 9.93 21.73 21.03
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

These estimates are for immediate implementation of all requirements. Some elements will be delayed to allow for the development of new trai ning material and so th at sufficient qualified trainers can be trained. For simplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the implementation period that account for all interactions, we evaluate the costs given immediate implementation of all requirements and then given a two-year delay in the implementation of all requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds.

These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with training whether or not a pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS farms find it more cost-effective to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity analysis, we consider two alternative scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost-minimizing agent, will delay training until a pesticide application is necessary, thus saving the cost of training if pesticides are not needed during the year. This involves adjusting the probab ilities used to estimate the expected cost to account for the farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. In the second alternative, we assume that WPS farms could delay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal, especially the stricter requirements for immediat e training and on trainer qualifications, delaying training may prove costly because workers cannot be brought into compliance with sufficient speed. Under this scenario, only the probabil ities in the baseline are adjusted to account for farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides . As explained later, the cost estimates are

similar across these three scenarios.

Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

for X = P and B.

Table 5.2-8 presents this calculation for the baseline. Costs per actor are given in the row immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of the products is given in the right-hand column. EPA estimates that, nationally, current regulations cost about $18.3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15.7 million annually.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

148 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

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)
South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $ 16.5 6 17

.60 $ 1 0.93 1

1.97 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

N a,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $2, 361 4

14

N a,Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $

5 86 597 California

cost TRAIN,a B $81. 12 1

4 $ 34.13 35

.71 $ 16.39 1

7.95 $44. 68

70 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

N a,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $3, 3 45 3

78 Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $ 16.56 17

.60 $ 1 0.93 1

1.97 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

N a,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $

6 23 632

N a,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $1, 9 06 9

43

N a,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1, 7 65 7

86 Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $ 16.5 6 17

.60 $ 1 0.93 1

1.97 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

N a,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $2, 871 9

47

N a,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3, 171 2

53

N a,Texas 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $1, 681 7

25

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $18, 310

675 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 5.2-9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. Summing the per-farm/firm and per-employee cost s results in an estimate of $50.9 million dollars for the first year, assuming full implementation and all WPS farms conducting training. If WPS farms can delay training until necessitated by a pesticide application, the cost is
estimated to be $43.4 million.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

149 Table 5.2-9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only)
Large

WPS Farm LargeSmall

WPS

Farm Other

Small

WPS

Farms CPH

E WPS

Worke

r WPS

Handl

er CPHE

Handl

er

UC

o P

a $ 127.7 7 132

.84 $ 54.58 56.

38 $ 39.83 38.

63 $44.4

0 $9.93 $21.73 $21.03 RC oi P t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,06 8 36,924 2,545 $6, 865 997

Californi

a 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,84 4 15,365 1,059 $5, 645 700

Southwe

st 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $1, 674 702 Subtropi

cal 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,48 5 6,195 427 $1, 8 02 824

Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,61 7 53,776 3,706 $9, 010 203

Northeas

t 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,71 3 25,525 1,759 $5, 632 723

Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,03 7 57,245 3,945 $ 9.930 10,135

Texas/M

t West 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,80 9 30,481 2,101 $5, 266 375

Northwe

st 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,06 9 14,373 991 $5, 049 101

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,6

10 247,81

5 17,080 $ 5 0,874 51,761

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional costs for the baseline and proposal.

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

Costs may vary over time because a few requireme nts will not be implemented immediately. As noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes all requirements are implemented immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are delayed two years. Further, the number of entities and workers is expected to change over time, as discussed in Chapter 3.3.2.

Table 5.2-10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the proposed package of training regulations. Over ten years, the PV of the national cost in the
baseline is estimated to be about $153 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is
$425 million. Formatted Table

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

150 Table 5.2-10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN only)

Region PV(RC
o P i ) PV(RC
o B i ) PV(RIC o i ) Annual RIC
($1,000)

South 57,587 58,725 19,731 20,185 37,856 38,540 4, 309 386 California 46, 347 821 27, 544 828 18, 804 993 2, 140 162

Southwest 13,971 14,215 4, 871 968 9, 100 247 1, 036 052 Subtropical 14,884 15,075 5, 132 208 9, 752 867 1, 110 123

Midwest 75,934 77,592 24, 161 823 51,772 52,769 5,893 6,006

Northeast 46,924 47,711 15,839 16,153 31, 084 557 3, 538 592 Ohio Valley 83,550 85,315 26,649 27,353 56,901 57,962 6, 476 597

Texas/Mountain

West 44,315 45,254 14, 131 506 30, 184 749 3, 435 500 Northwest 41, 500 943 14, 474 651 27, 026 292 3, 076 106

National 4 25,010 432,652 15 2,531 155,675 27 2,479 276,976 31, 012 524
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

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

The final two columns of Table 5.2-10 present the expected regional level incremental costs, i.e.

, the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs for the training components. Regional costs range from a low of $9. 1 2 million over 10 years for the Southwest, which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Th ree Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $ 5 6.9 58.0 million in the Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indi ana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differing number of farm and commercial pesticide operations and differing nu mbers of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The exception is California, which incurs relatively low incremental costs because its training standards are higher than current federal requirements.

Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

ܥܫܣ ோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ ோ ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

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

The right-hand column of Table 5.2-10 shows regional and national annualized incremental costs. For the training requirements, the proposed regulations are expected to cost the agricultural industry between $ 2 3.9 24.1 and $31. 0 5 million annually, given a 3% discount rate. The range stems from the implementation schedule, where some requirements will be phased in*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

151 over two years. For reference, the sum of the in cremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 million per year.

The assumption that all WPS farms conduct training before determining that a pesticide application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed revisions. If WPS farms only conduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated
to be between $20. 2 5 and $26. 3 7 million, given that some requir ements will be phased in over two years. If WPS farms are currently able to wa it until a pesticide application is needed but will not risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $26. 4 7 and $ 3 3.5 34.1 million per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s

best estimate.

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

ܸܲ ሺ ܴܥܫ ௜ ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ

ோ,௜ ൯

ோ

This step will be done after estimating the cost s of the proposed requirements in the other categories.

Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of entity.

ܥܧ ோ,௘ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,௔ ௑ ൈ ܰ ௔,௘

a

Initially, we will simply examine regional vari ation in cost-per-entity for farms in general, distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annual sales of more than $2.5 million. In Section 5.4, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely.

Step 8. We calculate the PV of per-entity costs before taking the difference between the baseline and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also employ an average of 0.41 handlers, based on the assumption that large-small farms employ one and other small farms employ none.

Incremental cost per entity is simply the differe nce between the cost of the baseline regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories.

ܥܫܧ൫ܸܲ

௘ ௑ ൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܥܧ

ோ,௘ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܥܧ ோ,௘ ஻ ൯

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

152 Table 5.2-11 presents the annualized per-entity co sts associated with the training requirements for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers. California is the only region that varies signifi cantly from the other regions. The incremental cost per establishment, assuming immediate implementation, is shown in the final column. If all requirements were delayed two years, the annualized incremental costs would be about $200 per year for large farms and $55 for small farms. The annualized cost to CHPEs would be around
$84.

Table 5.2-11. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. (TRAIN only)

Farm size/Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

California 3 70 375 237 1 3 2 137 All Other Regions 3 70 375 13 0 132 2 40 243

SMALL WPS FARMS

California 8 9 91 5 3 55 36 All Other Regions 8 9 91 28 30 61

CPHE 173 63 110
Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate.



### 5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve information exchange (hazard communication and notification) to employees and between WPS farms and CPHEs. Proposed hazard communication requirements include making application information available (HAZCOM-01 ), augmenting the application information with copies of the label and SDS (HAZCOM-02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years (HAZCOM-05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY-01, Post field warning signs if the REI is greater than 48 hours, NOTIFY-03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY-06, Revise the content on warning signs (phased-in over two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs), and NOTIFY-08, specify that warning signs must be posted if the treated field is within 100 feet of worker housing. For workers entering fields during the REI, revi sions include NOTIFY-10, Provide additional information about the pesticide orally, and NOTIFY-12, Keep records of information provided for two years. EPA is proposing to revise the content of safety posters, NOTIFY-14, which will be phased in over two years. EPA is also proposing to require additional safety posters: NOTIFY-15, additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY-16, at handler decontamination locations. Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer with information about a pesticide application, NOTIFY-18.

These two components can be addressed separately because there are no overlapping requirements between the two or between the training requirements. Overlap only occurs*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

153 between elements within the components, consisti ng, for example, of the same signs or posters adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements.

We present the results of the estimation. De tails showing the calculations are available in Appendix B.

Hazard Communication

Table 5.2-12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and regional baselines for hazard communication requirements. All requirements are imposed immediately. The proposed revisions are e xpected to cost about $8.0 million per year, accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requirement (HAZCOM-01). On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley are expected to bear the majority of these costs, in part because of the large number of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also somewhat lower in many other regions because representative states already impose some of the requirements or require that SDS be available from pesticide distributors, which will facilitate compliance. Texas already meets the proposed re quirements so farms there, and in states with similar regulations, may see a reduction in costs due the elimination of the central posting requirement.

Table 5.2-12. PV of Baseline and Propos ed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (HAZCOM only)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual RIC
($1,000) South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885 California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405 Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84 Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726 Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303 Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922 Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083 -1,577 -180 Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734
National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Table 5.2-13 presents the per-entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. Several states have requirements that are similar to the proposals and the impacts will be small, ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 per year in Florida and Iowa. Other regions may face higher incremental costs to obtain the requi red information. EPA does not anticipate a distinct difference in costs between large and sm all farms. The cost of complying with the hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for small than for large farms.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

154 Table 5.2-13. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. (HAZCOM only)

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5 All Other Regions 108 69 38

SMALL WPS FARMS CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4 All Other Regions 90 58 32

Source: EPA estimates.

Notification

The regional, incremental, and annualized cost s of the proposed notification requirements are

shown in Table 5.2-14. The estimated annual cost s of $15.1 million are somewhat overestimated since some requirements will be phased in over a two-year period. EPA also estimated costs if all requirements were phased in, which would somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11.7 million per year. The simple sum of th e proposed costs is $14.6 million per year.

Table 5.2-14. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY only)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual RIC
($1,000) South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330 California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477 Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316 Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508 Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508 Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695

Texas/Mountain West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970 Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632
National 468,466 336,006 132,460 15,076
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The final two columns of Table 3.5-14 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs. The regional incremental costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region.

Results of the per-entity analysis are shown in Table 5.2-15. Large WPS farms are relatively less impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

155 save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by posting because it is more efficient than orally informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be overstated, however, because small farms may re ly more on temporary wo rkers who will not be on farm when some applications are made or during the REI and thus will have relatively fewer posting events over time.

Table 5.2-15. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. (NOTIFY only)

Farm size EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 254 18

SMALL WPS FARMS 120 78 42

Source: EPA estimates.

Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirements because revisions codify existing interp retations of applicable requirements.



### 5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

The proposed rule includes several categories of regulations that are intended to better protect workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE-01, Minimum age of 16 for workers entering fields during the REI, and AGE-03, Minimum age of 16 for handlers. The proposed entry requirements consist of ENTRY-01, Expand the restricted area during a pplication; ENTRY-02, Limit worker time in fields during the REI; EN TRY-03, Halt applications if workers enter the restricted area; and ENTRY-05, Codify exceptio n to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing PPE-01, Require respirator fit test; PPE-02, E liminate exemptions for WPS employees acting as CCAs; PPE-03, Eliminate exemptions for employees of CCAs; PPE-04, Revising standards for closed mixing and loading systems, PPE-05, Simplifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and PPE-06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE.

None of the requirements within these categories overlap with any other proposed category of regulation.

Age

The two proposed age requirements do not interact with any other regulations. In this case, the regulatory costs can simply be summed. Table 5.2-16 presents the NPV for the baseline and proposed costs. As explained in Section 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor costs, not compliance costs.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

156 Table 5.2-16. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000) ($1,000) South 7,568 6,788 780 89 California 4,447 3,948 498 57

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20 Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12 Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122 Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68 Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133 Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70 Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51
National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The annual cost of the age restrictions on handlers and on workers involved in early entry events is estimated to be $620,000. Annual per-entity costs are provided in Table 5.2-17. CPHEs are not expected to be impacted because few commer cial establishments would employ adolescents under 16 years of age to handle pesticides.

Table 5.2-17. Annual Per-Entity Baseline and Proposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. (AGE only)

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1.05

CPHE 470 470 0

Source: EPA estimates.

Entry

The proposed entry restrictions are largely definiti onal. As explained in Section 3.3.6, there are no measureable costs to the individual regulations . The total cost of the entry component is, therefore, also near zero.

PPE

There could be some overlap between reporting requirements in the PPE category, but the effect on costs is minimal. Table 5.2-18 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten-year time horizon, at the regional and national levels. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

157 Table 5.2-18. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563 California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593 Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427 Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377 Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024 Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063 Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127 Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251
National 352,013 196,955 155,058 17,648
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Table 5.2-19 presents the per-entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms represents the average cost over all small farms, including the medium- and small-small WPS farms that would generally not employ handlers. California’s requirements are similar to those proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primarily to upgrade closed mixing and loading systems, with self-employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental cost than enterprises w ith multiple employees.

Table 5.2-19. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 173 284 143 254 30 All Other Regions 170 281 5 2 163 118

SMALL FARMS

California 45 39 6 All Other Regions 49 19 30 CPHE, multiple handlers 656 574 82 CPHE (‘self-employed’) 245 167 78

Source: EPA estimates.



### 5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontaminat ion Supplies and Emergency Assistance*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

158 Certain provisions of the WPS are intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a recently treated field: SUPPLY-01, Water requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-02, Water requirements for decontamination during early entry ( i.e. , if the REI is still in effect). The proposal also includes two requirements for handlers: SUPPLY-03, Water requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-05, Water flow requirement for eyeflushing. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency assistance to be 30 minutes for worker emergencies, EMERG-01, and handler emergencies, EMERG-03.

There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of these categories is the simple sum of the individual items.

Supply

The revisions to the requirements for supplies for routine and emergency decontamination largely codify existing guidance. However, one provision, SUPPLY-02, will increase the amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers when entering a field under a REI. EPA estimates the costs to be about $2,500 annually, as shown in Table 5.2-20.

Table 5.2-20. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3

California 164 160 3.8 0.4

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1 Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3 Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4

National 4,795 2,580 4,773 2,558 22 2.5
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The per-entity costs of these requirements are negligible. Table 5.2-21 presents the estimated baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of employees. The per-handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen by the estimated incremental cost to a CPHE, because ru nning water is typically available at mixing and loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted.

Table 5.2-21. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only)

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

159 LARGE FARMS All Regions 2.25 2.20 0.02

SMALL FARMS All Regions 0.46 0.45 0.01

CPHE 7.50 7.50 0.00
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due to rounding.

Emergency Assistance

The new regulations dealing with emergency assistance are all definitional in nature and EPA does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8.



### 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

Having accounted for the overlap between the individual components of the proposed rule, the total cost can be estimated by summing the costs of the eight components. Table 5.2-22 presents the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs, assuming all elements are implemented immediately. Nationally, the proposed rule is estimated to increase the cost of complying with the worker protection standard by $636 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three percent discount rate and assuming all requireme nts are implemented immediately. The annual incremental cost under this assumption is estima ted to be about $72.4 million. If implementation of all the training and notifica tion requirements is delayed for 2 years, the 10 year cost is
estimated to be $544 million and the annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $61.9 million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed regulations is estimated to be between $60.1 and $73.1 million.

Table 5.2-22. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total)

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000)

South 219,496 229,461 121,314 130,594 98, 183 867 11, 175 253

California 131,918 136,051 103,963 107,908 27,954 28,143 3, 182 203

Southwest 52,317 54,559 30,075 32,171 22, 242 389 2, 531 548 Subtropical 45,740 47,403 28,626 30,174 17, 115 229 1, 948 961

Midwest 341,958 358,643 213,456 229,144 128,502 129,499 14, 626 739

Northeast 178,158 185,163 103,996 110,527 74, 163 636 8, 441 495 Ohio Valley 335,679 353,557 183,779 200,596 151,901 152,962 17, 289 409

Texas/Mountain

West 176,176 183,883 110,950 118,093 65, 226 791 7, 424 488

Northwest 132,704 136,588 82,236 85,853 50, 468 735 5, 744 774
U.S. 1, 6 14,148 685,308 978,395 1,045,058 6 35,753 640,250 72, 359 871

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Figure 5.2-1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of the proposed rule to the total incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e. , the training, hazard communication, and*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

160 notification requirements, make up almost three -fourths of the total incremental costs. The protective regulations (min imum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of the remaining cost, with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total incremental cost. The requirements focused on mitigation are largely definitional in nature and contribute less than one percent of the cost.

Figure 5.2-1. Contribution of components of the proposed Worker Protection Standard to total annualized incremental cost, $72. 4 9 million.



## 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 ***

161 Average per-entity costs are presented in Table 5.2-23. As explained above, these costs are calculated by taking the per-farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per-worker and handler costs, multiplying by the average number of work ers and handlers given the type and size of the operation. Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations, but often only slightly. We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per-entity costs are below the national average, and the regions where per-entity cost is highest. The cost estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediately and that the WPS farms make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horizon, which overstates the expected cost of the proposal. Incremental costs for large farms are expected to average less

th an just over $400 per year, ranging from an additional $200 per year in California to about $430 per year in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley. Small farms are likely to face impacts of under $150 per year, on average, ranging from $90 per year in California to $170 per year in the Ohio Valley. If implementation of all training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $345 for large farms and $130 for small farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 

## Training

43% HazCom

11%

Notification

21%

Age

1% Entry

0% PPE

24%

Supply

0% Emergency

0% 

# Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$24.1 - 31.5 million

$11.7 - 15.1 million

$620,000 $17.6 million

$2,500 $8.0 million*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

162 Table 5.2-23. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total)

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 9 6 5 1,080 770 880 2 00 210 Ohio Valley 960 1,080 5 30 650 430

Texas/Mountain West 960 1,080 575 680 390 400

National 960 1,080 560 670 4 00 410

SMALL FARMS

California 350 260 90 Ohio Valley 3 55 360 190 1 65 170

Texas/Mountain West 3 55 360 2 25 220 1 3 0 140

National 3 55 360 2 05 210 150
CPHE, multiple

handlers 1,310 1,120 190
CPHE (‘self-employed’) 250 175 80
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 year s using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations subject to rounding.

The incremental cost to CPHEs w ith multiple handlers is estimated to be between $170 and $190 per year. The incremental cost for self-employe d commercial handlers is low because they will already meet the increased training requirements through the applicators certification process.

Table 5.2-23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in various regions, given those regions current regulations. Table 5.2-24 presents the costs to the average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is suggested by Table 5.2-23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest.

Table 5.2-24. Average Worker Per-Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm

workers/farm EIC o i workers/farm EIC o i South 15.8 385 390 2.9 160

California 54.8 350 360 10.0 94 90

Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160 Subtropical 38.3 505 510 7.0 150

Midwest 11.9 340 350 2.2 135 140

Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 165 170 Ohio Valley 13.1 375 380 2.4 160

Texas/Mountain

West 13.0 335 340 2.4 125 120

Northwest 51.3 620 630 9.3 180

U.S. 20.0 390 3.6 145 150*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

163 Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding.

A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the average cost to be between $26.50 and $31. 00 20 per year per employee, including handlers employed at CPHEs.

All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While assumptions attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is

unknown.



### 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

EPA also calculates the per-employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal incremental cost per WPS farm worker (not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on employment decisions. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training requirements, which are expected to cost about $5 .50 per year. This is offset by a reduction in the per-worker cost of the notification require ments of $1.20 per year as greater emphasis is placed on posting REI information. Age restrict ions will, on average, add less than $0.10 per year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0.01 per year. Table 5.3-1 presents this information.

Table 5.3-1. Annualized Per-Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler Training 5.48 15.11 15.03

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notification -1.15 0.00 0.00 Age 0.07 1.88 0.00 Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00 Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.41 59.26 15.03

Source: EPA estimates.

The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but is still relatively minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $15.10 per year to employment costs, but the main driver is the PPE category at $42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

164 requirement for fit testing respirators. The ag e restriction may add about $2.00 per year to employment costs by restricting farms from using lower-wage adolescents to mix, load, and apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $60 per year, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight hours per day and assuming only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost of $60 per year represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact on jobs.

The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimate d to be about $15 per year, all of which is a result of increased training.



### 5.4 Small Business Impacts

This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on small entities by examining the relationship betw een the compliance costs and revenue for small WPS farms and small commercial pe sticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions.

Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 5.4.1, and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received from the panel that influenced the proposed requirements. For example, the requirement for a sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and loading sites was suggested by the panel as an alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Based on the current analysis, EPA concludes that there will not be a significant im pact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, in cluding businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. When significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly im pacted small entities.

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less than one percent of annual sales as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if a substantial number of firms will be impacted.

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we use the following thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial”:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 30% of all small farms;*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

165  Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20% of all small farms; or

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than

10% of all small farms. If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a

substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20% of all small farms;

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small farms; or

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5%

of all small farms.

Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to develop cost-to-sales ratios.

In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA estimates that small CPHEs will not face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $200 per year, is only 0.10 percent of the average annual revenue for small CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010).

In Section 5.4.2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the proposal as well as a two-year delayed implementation of the traini ng and notification requirements.



### 5.4.1 Industry Profile

EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) to identify the number of small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas.

EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, greenhouses, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size classifications (large and small) according to th e SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 million in annual sales. Table 5.4-1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of

the total that are small farms.

Table 5.4-1. Crop-producing farms, by type and size, and average number of employees. Farm Type Number of Small Farms 1 Average Number of Employees*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

166 Farms (%) Large Farms Small Farms All Crop Farms 1,564,178 95.7% 16.1 0.8 All Crop Farms using pesticides 788,582 92.6% 17.6 1.4

WPS Farms 2 394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6

WPS Farms 2 using pesticides 304,348 83.9% 20.9 3.9

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).

1 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue.

2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor.

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is bur dened with various types and species of pests and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e.

, those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4-2 presents the number of farms, annual value of crops sold, and number of workers, by type and size. These categories of farms provide the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small farms.

Table 5.4-2. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size. Type All Small 1 Large-Small 1 Medium-Small 1 Small-Small 1

Farms Producing Crops number 1,496,722 264,197 477,699 754,826 sales $ 66,277 $ 300,043 $ 36,680 $ 3,188

workers 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3 Farms Using Pesticides number 730,387 221,735 290,611 218,041 sales $ 109,865 $ 304,107 $ 41,208 $ 3,839

workers 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.5

WPS Farms 2

number 340,369 139,237 121,223 79,909 sales $ 152,986 $ 334,448 $ 42,733 $ 4,055

workers 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.5

WPS Farms 2 Using Pesticides number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880 sales $181,742 $337,326 $45,587 $4,445

workers 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.7
Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b).

1 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three subgroups: large-small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

167year; medium-small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and smallsmall farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as
those with less than $2.5 millio n in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium-small feedlots, with annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small-small feedlots, with annual sales less than $50,000 per year. 2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, incl uding nurseries and greenhous es, that hire labor. WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticide application is made within a specified time and distance from where employees are working.

It is worth noting that small-small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less than $10,000 in annual sales, also employ an average of nearly three laborers. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees . It may be that these employees are very temporary and are associated with a few tasks such as harvest that demand relatively high labor input over a short period of time. Non

- farm income is also important for these enterprises. USDA reports that off

- farm income for all vegetable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per year in 2005

- 2007, accounting for 55 percent of household income ( Ali and Lucier , 2011). For

smaller vegetable farms, defined by USDA as those with average farm sales between $40,000 and $249,000 per year, off

- farm income accounts for 94 percent of household income. In general, the portion of income generated off

- farm is higher for other types of farmin g ( Ali and

Lucier , 2011). Thus, employees may also be engaged in ot her activities as well as in agriculture or instead of in agriculture It may also be that these employees are engaged in other revenuegenerating activities not directly related to the farm's own production

.



### 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

EPA estimates the incremental cost for the various WPS farm sizes according to the methodology described in Section 5.1. Per-entity unit cost is added to the per-worker cost times the number of workers. Large-small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler, on average,

while medium-small and small-small WPS farms are assumed to rely on commercial applicators or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications.

Table 5.4-3 presents the number of WPS farms, average sales, and estimated annual incremental cost of the rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual incremental costs are based on existing requirements in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 5.2.5, the

incremental cost for a small WPS farm in Cali fornia is substantially less than the national average due to the regulatory baseline even accounting for the relatively higher number of workers per farm. Despite variation in the number of work ers across the different regions of the

United States in Texas , estimated incremental costs are fairly consistent with the Northwest region somewhat higher and the Texas/ Mountain West region are also expected to have incremental costs per entity le ss than the national average.

EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue . Over all types of small

farms and does not find a significant impact from the rule. Overall , the impact of the rule is 0.1 percent of average sales , which is not considered significant . Only the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4,500 per year, may face impacts above one percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one percent of sales could be over 40,000,*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

168 given the number of small-small establishments. However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as it does not account for includes the nearly 5,000 small-small farms in California that would face impa cts well below the national average. It also includes over 14,000 farms that are primarily livestock operat ions and over 13,000 farms that are primarily field crop and forage producers whose employees are unlikely to engage in hand labor activities that would trigger WPS provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or no cost as a result of the proposed revisions.

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 $ 1 4 7 148 $ 2 31 232 $ 1 10 111 $ 81 82

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8% Two-Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 1 25 126 $ 2 01 202 $ 90 $ 66 67

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5%
Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations.

1 Training and Notification only.

It is also s tandard practice, when evaluating impacts pe r firm, to consider the revenues of the parent company, which may be involved in other activities than the one being regulated. In that context, it is worth noting that farm income represents only a portion of t otal household income for small operations. As noted in the preceding section, USDA reports that off

- farm income accounts for 94 percent of income for farms making between $40,000 and $249,000 per year in

farm sales and that off

- farm income for vegetable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per year (Ali and Lucier, 2011). Thus, comparison of the rule costs to farm income alone will typically, and perhaps substantially, overs tate the impacts on the smallest entities. If, on average, farm income represen ts even 25 percent of household income, the smallest WPS farms total income is estimated to be about $17,800 per year. This implies off

- farm income of about $13,300, well below that reported by USDA ( Ali and Lucier , 2011). An incremental increase in

cost s of $ 8 1 per year as a consequence of the proposed rule, and assuming 20 pesticide applications each year over the 10

- year period of analysis, represents about 0. 5 percent of annual income and would not be considered significant.

EPA also examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small-small farms in order to gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether WPS training requirements will apply to small-smal l farms every year of a ten-year time period, which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4-3. Less than 55 percent of small-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

169 workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safetytraining if an application has been made. Under this scenario, the incremental cost to smallsmall WPS farms would average under $60 per year.

A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small-small farms employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be appli cable for pesticide applications made well before workers are hired. For small-small farms, the hazard communication and notification requirements comprise a large shar e of the cost at $40 per year, based on 20 pesticide applications per year, as with the other cat egories of farms. It is likely that small-small farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small-small farms make only five applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required ( e.g. , in the 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is also less than $60 per year. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been made and only five applications trigger the h azard communication and notification requirements, the incremental cost of the rule for small-small farms averages only $35 per year.

Given that, for small-small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated and that total household income is substantially underestimated , EPA concludes that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the proposed rule would not have a significant impact will generally be less than one percent of the value of annual sales of agricultural products

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

170 

## Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

Occupational exposure to pestic ides can result in both acute health effects to workers and handlers as well as health problems that occur later; if the proposed rule changes are implemented, agricultural workers and pestic ide handlers will have better information and protections that will enable them to reduce thei r occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will provide a range of benefits to agricultural farm workers and handlers. The proposed rule changes would ensure that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure.

By proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to substantially mitigate for these workers and ha ndlers the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include requirements intended to reduce exposure by:

 Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides –The proposed rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as proposing changes to ensure that the training is more effective.

 Reducing exposure to pesticides – Among other things, the proposed rule changes and clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should directly reduce exposure to the agricultural workforce.

 Mitigating the effects from exposures that o ccur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to respond to exposures.

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals considered by the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed rule describes in detail the proposed requirements, and how they are expected to better inform workers about the risks and causes of pestic ide exposure, protect them against ex posure, and mitigate the effects of exposure. This chapter discusses how these three approaches can reduce the health effects of exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The proposed changes include proposals for improv ed training requirements, in terms of the frequency of training agricultural workers receiv e, and the content of that training. Other proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in combination with training to improve farmworker s’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect themselves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. Within agriculture, Barnett et al . (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of pesticides, and a greater understanding of how to protect children from take home exposure. Both Strong et al . (2008) and Salvatore et
al . (2009) report better self-protection practices af ter safety training for Hispanic farmworkers.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

171 

### 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced acute exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot.

Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by:

 avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm

workers and handlers.

 mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers.

 avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents ( e.g. , developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers.

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers, handlers and their families.

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that have been reported to databases that count poiso ning incidents; these only represent a portion of the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing the benefit estimates in this chapter.

Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designed to clarify emergency response procedures and or the amount of decontamination supplies available. These provisions can reduce the severity of the accidental poisoning events , and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. Because our estimates are based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are underestimated. There is not enough available information to determine how much severity would be reduced in a given incident.

The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers will be discussed in a semi-quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are described, but cannot be quantified.

The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusse s the potential long-term effects that may result from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be reduced*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

172 by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break-even analysis that shows some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness.



### 6.2. Who is at Risk?

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a large portion of the agricultura l workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Ta ble 3.3-4) that are hired by agricultural establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from pesticide exposure (NASS, 2008b). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides directly, but they may be exposed to agricultura l-plant pesticides either through contact with residues on treated plants, soil, or water or th rough accidental contact from drift or misdirected application. EPA assumes there are nearly 250,000 pesticide handlers, included in the farm worker population, that handle pesticides directly; another 72,000 handlers are employed at commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010, See Section 3.3.2). The agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues and that exposure can pose significant long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk re duction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different toxicities and risks and are exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of frequencies. There is, however, strong overall evidence that such risks can occur and that they can be substantially reduced; the provisions in th e proposed rule will help reduce these risks by reducing exposure However, as a result of an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes

.



### 6.2.2. Children and families

Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections for children. These include training components designed to minimize exposure to family members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and handlers themselves (resulting in less take ho me exposure); minimum age limits for certain worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn children are particularly sensitive to pesticid e exposure. Children may experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differenc es like crawling on the floor and putting objects into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems are still developing, and they have re latively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are exposed to pesticides and there is the potential fo r negative health effects from this pesticide

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

173 Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. Also, Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at various development birth, continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently

, allowing for chemical exposures to have more or less effect than adults metabo lize pesticides and

other chemicals . The proposed changes to the WPS also include restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also discussed below.

Take Home Exposure

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

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

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmwork er children in the Salinas Valley of California, and pesticide metabolites in th e urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found significantly higher levels of atrazine and metola chlor (which only have agricultural uses) in

farm households. The distribution of the sa mples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported home on farmers clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate that take home exposure is an important source of exposure for children. The studies cited above consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the agri cultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and that levels of Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest levels of azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004, Coronado et al ., 2006). Curl et
al ., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which suggest the take home pathway is the sour ce for the residues. Exposure studies on organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007;

Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007).

Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., 2009 conducted interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, respondents beli eve that dry powder pesticides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regu larly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and , as the article states “previous research has [shown] that farmworkers were*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

174 unwilling often report delaying showering for over an hour after work in order to wash allow their

hand and bodies immediately after work. to cool fully for fear of developing arthritis or other health problems.” Quandt et al . (1998) found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). Other exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may be particularly important for long-term development.

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by proposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is evidence that adolescents and children do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). As reported in Reed et al . (2006), “young agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their nonagricultural counterparts.” This statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and suggests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked whether they used PPE when it was required, th e median self-reported frequency for use of respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem attributed to that exposure. The authors also s uggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006).

The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, partic ularly in the ar eas of judgment, risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinbe rg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect us e patterns or regulations in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high

levels.

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, teens knew of the risk associated with pestic ide exposure; however, varying opinions existed among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

175 be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did not have the time and/or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they appeared to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et
al ., 2004).

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning survei llance data shows that working youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, an d greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults.

Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management decisions. It is not certain why risky behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents ar e aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The cognitive changes that occur du ring adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking process for adolescents. This picture of the a dolescent development and behavior implies that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the propos ed rulemaking, will not protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the establishment of minimum age for certain activiti es (with an exception for adolescents covered by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety.



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

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposure s to workers and handlers and their families, including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses as sociated with chronic occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section

6.8.



### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). Exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range fro m mild skin irritation to more*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

176 severe effects. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). Although this brie f discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers and handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6.

Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pes ticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illn ess cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et
al . found that about half of a ll occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural (the rest we re in other industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (a bout 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye

contact.

Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases 4

. The impact on the financial situation of a low-income farmworker can be dramatic.



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

4 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://ww w.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

177 This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm families; many others, including some cancers also have an association with pesticide exposure. The discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 6.6, because most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based on occupational exposure.

Reproductive Risks

Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1.

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of Papers Found Number of Papers Found that Display an Association Between

the Outcome Examined and Pesticide Exposure* Birth Defect 15 14 (+) Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) Fertility** 14 7 (-) Altered Growth 10 7 (+) Fetal Death 11 9 (+) Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses. ** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year , and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality an d infertility.

As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen st udies that were reviewed reported an association between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart de fects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven studies showed an association between pestic ide exposure and fetal death which includes “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the systematic review, an d note they were not able to assess whether publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

178 Potential Health Effects in Children

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker durin g windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field.

Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of younger children, there are important development developmental processes that continue until

adulthood

. .. In particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when th e effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (G olub, 2000). In additio n, occupational exposure beginning in adolescence gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure

to manifest themselves over a full lifetime.

Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, are looking at pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are:

 The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves comparisons between pre- and post-cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos.

 Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian. This t eam has associated urinary metabolites (TCP and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevel opmental outcomes. The enrollment of the Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

179 However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase-out of residential uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications.

 The CHAMACOS cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This cohort is exposed to many pesticides fro m multiple pathways such as occupational exposures and take-home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is the cohort associated with the Center for Health

Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salin as (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, being studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily Latina women from farmworker popu lations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from this cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during pregnancy on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi

et al ., 1999; Bradman et al ., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and

theirchildren their children (Bradman et al ., 2005; Eskenazi et al ., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2004; Young and Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi

et al ., 2007). These studies have investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on fetal growth and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al ., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child organ ophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et al ., 2007).

The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolite s in maternal and child urine samples, as well as specific metabolites of malathion (m alathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos (TCP), and parathion (4-nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007).

The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al ., 2007), abnormal reflexes (Young et al ., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004).

Similar research in other cohorts is being cond ucted by both Columbia University and the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are exposed are smaller, but these studies report sim ilar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three cohorts report delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to OP pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). The CHAMACOS and Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al

., 2006, Lovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

180 Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and the development of behavior related to attentio n deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, Levasi, et al

., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010),

found an association between OP metabolites and ADH D behaviors. In this study, compared to children with undetectable metabolite levels, childr en with levels higher than the sample median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors.

The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmenta l effects. Specifically, these studies suggest that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures.



### 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoi ding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

In the next section, a quantified estimate of th e benefits of the rule changes are provided, but these quantified estimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide expos ure exists to make a reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for

which sufficient data are not availa ble to quantify these benefits.

The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section, when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported.

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will result from the WPS, and dose/response relations hip between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is impossible to quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, and it is impossible to quantify the benefits from the proposed WPS rule changes that may

reduce these effects.

The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non-quantifiable benefits from chronic exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 6.6.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

181 

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

EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by further protecting workers and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $11.3 million annually, although important non-quantifiable benefits are discussed later in the chapter. This section quantifies benefits fr om the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure.



### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data

We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates th e number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of pesticide incident reports to identify the proxim ate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 6.5.2, underreporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated

benefits. This downward bias could be eliminat ed, if the amount of underreporting was known. A discussion of underreporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of

Section 6.5.

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL).

For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticid e incidents we use two complementary databases: one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures that led to the incident report but lacks national representation (NIOSH’ Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, SENSOR), and one that is nationally representative, but lacks the necessary exposure detail (American Association of Poison Control Center ’s National Poison Data System, NPDS). Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by th e National Institute fo r Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program th at monitors occupationa l illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three-year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mich igan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 2004. SENSOR reports generally contain suffici ent detail to identify the type of pesticide

involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to estimate the proportion of incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule.

Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate the annual number of pesticide incidents in the

United States. Illness from pesticide exposure is a poisoning event, and the NPDS tracks*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

182 occupational pesticide poisonings. NPDS is a comprehensive surveillance system developed in 1983 and maintained by the American Associatio n of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) to track acute illness and injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system with geographically specific and near real-tim e reporting. The system contains detailed toxicological information on poison exposures re ported to poison centers around the country, capturing an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the

United States. The NPDS data does not have su fficient information to determine whether a reported incident could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distribution of effects, including death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more detail in

Section 6.5.4.

The value of avoided incidents is measured as av oided cost for treatment and lost productivity.

Information on medical costs comes from two sour ces. Cost of inpatient care comes from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by the Agency for H ealthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private dataorganizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patientlevel health care data. HCUP includes the larges t collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classifi cation system used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals.

Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4.



### 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

There is concern that pesticide incidents in ge neral and among the agricultural workforce inparticular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before an occupational pesticiderelated illness can be recorded by any counting syst em: (1) workers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al ., 2001).

(1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more common pesticides results in flu-like or cold- like symptoms, such as h eadache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. A llergic effects may be either upper-respiratory problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by exposure to poison ivy. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

183 pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues.

(2) Workers and handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, many pesticide-related acute health effect s will gradually disappear without medical intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, causes some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition will gradually (depending on the fa mily of pesticide, severity, and repetition of exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of California workers whose illnesses had been report ed to a surveillance system showed that in 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment (Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported.

Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handle rs’ access to medical care is poor. A report on migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005).

The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low-income persons. Although low-income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs:

 Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significantbarrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to nondisabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it difficult for low-income workers with flu ctuating incomes and assets needed for employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify.

 Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are e ligible for Medicaid may have difficulty completing the application and enrollment pro cess. Given their limited English skills, it can be very difficult for them to comple te long application forms or meet extensive verification requirements, particularly if ther e is limited availability of language assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005).

A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeking medical care for agricultural workers, including the loss of wage s while seeking care, loss of their job through retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington State Department of Health, 2003).

Many agricultural workers average 6-day work weeks during their peak work season. Without sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

184 miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their medical bills would be covered by workers comp ensation and feared employer disapproval if it were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm (Washington State Department of Health, 2003).

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical treatment is sought, the treating medical personne l may not specifically diagnose the illness or injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be drawn. Like their patients, physicians and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming

the causes.

(4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must berecorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be underreported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent difficulties in health care providers recognizing cond itions as work-related." (Washington, 1991)

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constr aints on physicians that may prevent them from completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in wh ich they might have to defend an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this statement" (Arizona, 1990).

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the literature that occupational medical incidents, es pecially exposures to poisons, are underreported, although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5-1.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

185 Table 6.5-1 Summary of Results from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies

Between a Poison Control

Center and a Member Hospital (Harchelroad et al

., 1990) Compare poison control center reports to actual toxic exposures presented to an urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of a Regional PoisonInformation Center (ChafeeBahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two-year period “Sufficiently Large” b

1987 Interpretation and Uses of

Data Collected in Poison

Control Centers in the United States (Veltri et al ., 1987) Identifying the strengths and

weaknesses of the American

Association of Poison Control

Centers National Data Collection System 67%

2008 Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (US House of Representatives, 2008) Identifying issues involving the inclusiveness of reported workplace injuries and

illnesses 69%

2008 Examining Evidence on

Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (Ruser 2008) Identifying underreporting for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and how they can be corrected. 20-70% c

Notes:

a The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were 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 Occu pational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent (Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deaths are also unaccounted for within the survey. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, no ting that many conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some correlation may exist.

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and illnesses are less likely to be inspected by th e Occupational Safety an d Health Administration (OSHA).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

186 There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases report ed to poison control with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In a ll three cases, the studies indicate a substantial underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these

studies.

Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non-reporting.

Chafee-Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases.

The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide poisonings may be consistently low

There are several reasons to think that pesticid e incidents specifically are underreported. The OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;

 No central reporting point for all incidents;

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes;

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

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the effects;

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects;

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians;

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases.

There are good reasons to think that underreporti ng is at least as significant in the agricultural sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

187 the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) desc ribes the hired farmworker population as “... younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign-born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized

to work in the United States.” These attrib utes point toward a re latively disadvantaged workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek medical care, which would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available to be counted in poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers (NASS, 2008a).

Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a population that does not have a lo t of resources to seek healthca re, may be unwilling to interact with health workers because of their immigratio n status, or have difficulty communicating with health workers when they do seek medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure.

The limited available data for pesticide poisoni ngs of farmworkers are consistent with the conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5.



### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR from 2003-2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases, 57 percent, occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is a pplicable. Thus, of all occupational pesticide incidents found in NPDS, EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 incidents occur on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses annually.

The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 ca ses that would likely have been avoided under the proposed revisions to the WPS, as explaine d below. Another 84 cases might possibly have been avoided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 percent of all occupational cases, would be likely or at least possibly avoidable through the proposed changes. Given the number of occupational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any adjustment is made for under-reporting.

By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA then reviewed these cases for the cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate the exposure that caused the incident. Cases we re categorized as “likely”, “possible” or “not*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

188 likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments . Categories were assigned using the following guidelines:

 Likely:

o A technical proposed requirement, such as respirator fit testing or training, field posting, or extension of the entry –restricted area to forests and fields could mitigate the exposure. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was downgraded to “possible.”

 Possible:

o More frequent or more comprehensive training could mitigate the exposure.

 Unlikely

o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind

o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure

o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of application to row ends in

orchards

o The exposure was caused by malfunctioning equipment.

o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review

o The information in the case report was in sufficient to determine if the changes would mitigate the exposure.

EPA did not use all the available cases for this dete rmination. Certain pesticides, identified as Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be appl ied by certified applicators or applicators under their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consider ation here so as not to double count avoided

incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmworkers or handlers that were not applying RUPs.

Cases deemed “likely” to be avoided were used to calculate the low-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and “possible” to be avoided was used to calculate the high-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents.

The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

189 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 ***

190 Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticide poisonings where the WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases similar to those deemed “likely” to be avoided due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases in addition to those deemed as “possible” preventions after the proposed changes. Some of those “possible” cases may not be prevented by the rule changes (for example, if any were intentional exposures).

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes for the

Worker Protection Standard

Likelihood of being avoided by Proposed Rules Number

of Cases

Avoided Percent of Cases

where WPS is

Applicable (263 Cases) Percent of Occupational

Cases (460 Cases) Likely 63 24% 14%

Possible 84 32% 18% Both Possible and Likely 147 56% 32%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR data.

To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents that would be avoided by this rule, EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6.5-2 by the annual numbe r of incidents obtained from the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 occupational incidents. Given that 14 to 32 percent of comparable SENSOR cases, i.e. , all occupational cases, are likely and/or possibly avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (See Table 6.5-4). This estimate accounts only for reported incidents, which likely make up less than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on

WPS farms.



### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

As explained in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they require more treatment, including hospitalization. Workers and handlers suffering from more severe effects are more likely to seek medical tr eatment. Further, one would expect that a more severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality.

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

191 ܸ

௜ ௩஺ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௜ ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ ௜

where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the case, and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We identify four severity levels as described below: No Effect, Mino r Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect.

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any selftreatments.

The value of lost productivity is

VPL i = ( ω w ·work + ω H ·housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i

where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity,

and DUR is the duration of the effect.

The value of a reduction in premature mortality, the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, then the value of saving one statistical life equa ls $500 times 10,000—or $5 million. Note that this does not mean that any identif iable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 do llars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA,

2010 2010a ).

Probability of Effect

EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5-3, about 14 percent of the acute cases considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effects,” about 20 percent in “moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “major health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor

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

192 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 No Clinically Observable Symptoms 1 309 14.2%

Minor 1,416 65.3%

Moderate 429 19.8%

Major 15 0.7%

Death 1 0.05%

Total 2,170 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from a special tabulation of NPDS data from AAPCC

1 “No Clinically Observable Sy mptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (American Association of Poison Control Centers, undated):

 No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure 5

.

 Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, but they were minimally bothersome and generally resolved rapidly with no residual disability or disfigurement. A minor effect is often limited to the skin or mucus membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, skin irritation, first-degree dermal burn, sinus tachycardia without hypotension, and transien t cough are all examples of minor effects).

 Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minorsymptoms. Usually, some form of treatment is indicated. Symptoms were not lifethreatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion, acid-base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of moderate effects).

 Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement ( e.g. , repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory compromise requiring intubation, ventricular tachycardia with hypotension, cardiac or respiratory arrest, esophageal stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation).

 Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, undated).

Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and

the estimated number of cases avoided from Sec tion 6.5.2, EPA estimates the distribution of cases across the five severity levels. As shown in Table 6.5-4, the estimated number of national

5 Cases categorized as “No Effect” do not have clinically observable symptoms, and correspond to that category in

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

193 incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers.

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of Cases Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total Low End Estimate (13.6%) High End

Estimate (20.1%)

No effect No Clinically Observable Symptoms 1 14.2% 42 99

Minor 65.3% 193 453

Moderate 19.8% 59 137 Major 0.7% 2 5

Death 0.05% 0.14 0.32

Total 100.0% 297 693
Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 3. 6.5- 2 and 6.5- 3. 3. Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death.”

1 “No Clinically Observable Sy mptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Valuation of Effect

The value of the illnesses prevented is presente d below (in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10). The estimates presented are almost surely underestim ates for two reasons. First, the estimated number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5.2.

Second, the estimates are based solely on the co st of medical care and lost wages to those affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of illness (COI) estimates, however, may significan tly underestimate individual willingness to pay for a variety of reasons (EPA 2010 , 2010a ). In particular, these estimate do not: (1) address the value of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness ( i.e. , defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment returns individuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely).

It is also important to recognize that the fi nancial impact of a pesticide illness will hit farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and because agricultural work is often seasonal. Formatted Table*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

194 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, ba sed on the probability that medical treatment is sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on work, household activities, and leisure.

Direct Medical Costs

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect.

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we utilized the NPDS data for 2000-2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at health care facilities. Table 6.5-5 presents the numb er of NPDS cases that were seen at a health care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases from NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-5.

Table 6.5-5: Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide-Related Acute Exposures, NPDS 2000-2005.

Clinical Effect Cases Seen at

Health Care

Facility Total Cases Share of Cases Seen at Health Care Facility

No effect No Clinically Observable Symptoms 1 107 309 34.6%

Minor 826 1416 58.3%

Moderate 359 429 83.7% Major 14 15 93.3%

Source: NPDS data, 2000

- – 2005

1 “No Clinically Observable Sy mptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Heal thcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007. Formatted Table*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

195 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using da ta from physician visit benchmark fees for evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals) 6

. Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 2007, the average medical facility charge for outpa tient visits that fall into this HCPC category was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data

reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, payments that reflect the care that low income pa tients receive. This may be an underestimate, especially for moderate cases, where some treatment is required, which would imply that the outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs.

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-6.

Table 6.5-6 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF| i ) Outpatient

Cost Inpatient

Cost Expected Medical

Cost 1

No effect No Clinically Observable Symptoms 2 34.6% $55.10 $0 $19.08

Minor 58.3% $55.10 $0 $32.14

Moderate 83.7% $55.10 $0 $46.11 Major 93.3% $55.10 $23,101 $21,612.36

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

2 “No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corres ponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The Value of Lost Productivity

The value of lost productivity is estimated as th e value of various activities in which a person is typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. As noted above, we calculate this value as

E ሾ ܸܲܮ ௜ ሿ ൌ ሺ߱

௪ ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ ு ݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱ ௅ ݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ ௜

Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

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

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.58"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.6"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.81"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.71"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.58"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.6"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.81"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.71"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.58"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.6"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.81"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.71"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.58"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.6"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.81"

Formatted: Centered, Tab stops: Not at 0.71"*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

196 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2007b),an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a sevenday week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the average workweek for farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per week (DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Survey discussed in the next paragraph. The estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, b ecause leisure and househol d activities also have a value in our analysis.

Time spent in housekeeping activities varies consid erably by gender. Acco rding to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2007c), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 hours per day in household activities 7 and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 hours per day of household activities. There are 78.25 million men employed in the United States and 67.79 million women (BLS, 2007a). Thus, the weighted average of time spent in housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day.

Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assumi ng an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 hours per day.

The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $10.01 per hour. This analysis assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, but the results are not sensitive to this assumption, because we are also measuring the value of lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $9.50 (BLS, 2007a). Th is labor category was chosen as most closely representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after-tax wage rate for workers, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax Foundation, 2008), which leaves an after-tax return of $6.93 per hour.

Table 6.5-7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, Table 6.5-7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is estimated to be $135.69 per day.

7 Household activity is a broad category that includes all tasks to maintain a household, such as cooking, cleaning, home and vehicle maintenance, decoration, and yard care, as well as organizational activities like paperwork.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

197 Table 6.5-7: Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value ( ω ) Total Value per Day

Work 5.60 a $10.01 c $56.07
Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50 d $27.93

Leisure 7.46 b $6.93 e $51.69

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $135.69

Sources:

a BLS, 2007, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

c EPA Estimates – see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2007 CPS: Calculated by taking the median w eekly 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%).

The duration of illness by medical outcome/severit y is derived from severity definitions for the NPDS data. The NPDS data report the duration of clinical effects for minor, moderate and major severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and less than or equal to 24 hours.” For the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. The weights are the share of cases reported in the NPDS that have that duration for each severity level. For example, for moderate clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc.

Since exposure durations by clinical effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as a range of time ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low-end and high-end scenario for each duration category. The low-end scenario uses either the low-end estimate if an exact duration range was given ( e.g. , > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low-end is 1 day) or if the range is one-sided ( e.g. , < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used ( e.g. , for < 2 hours; the low-end is 1 hour). The high-end scenario uses the high-end of the duration range given ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 24 hours; the high-end is 1 day). For this analysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1-3 months, with one month for the low estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis.

There are no data available on the duration of clinical effects for “no effect.” However, people who visited a health care facility for “no effect ” (34.6%) were assumed to experience reduced productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low-end duration of one hour (about .04 days) and the high-end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases with “no effect” visited a health care facility, the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days).

Table 6.5-8 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

198 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($135.69) to yield high and low estimates of lost productivity for each severity level.

Table 6.5-8: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by Clinical

Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Average Duration

of Clinical Effect (Days) a E[VPL i ] c

No Effect No Clinically Observable Symptoms 1 Low-End 0.014 b $1.96
High-end 0.029 b $3.92

Minor Low-End 0.52 $70.39 High-end 1.78 $242.07

Moderate Low-End 1.05 $141.99 High-end 3.39 $460.23

Major Low-End 3.95 $535.72 High-end 14.41 $1,954.97

Sources:

a With the exception of no e ffect, the average duration in days was calcu lated 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 eff ect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($135.69).

1 “No Clinically Observable Sy mptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality

The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost productivity is included in the VSL.

Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents

The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10. For each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity

levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-9 shows the low end estimates,

which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of prevented cases, while Table 6.5-10 shows the high end estimates.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

199 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 No Clinically

Observable Symptoms 1 42 $19.08 $1.96 $0 $900

Minor 193 $32.14 $70.39 $0 $19,900

Moderate 59 $46.11 $141.99 $0 $11,100

Major 2 $21,612 $535.72 $0 $45,500

Death 0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $1,082,000

Total 296 $1,159,400

Source: EPA calculations. Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1 “No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresp onds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Table 6.5-10: “High-End” Estimate of A voided 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 No Clinically

Observable Symptoms 1 99 $19.08 $3.92 $0 $2,300

Minor 453 $32.14 $242.07 $0 $124,200

Moderate 137 $46.11 $460.23 $0 $69,400

Major 5 $21,612 $1,954.97 $0 $117,800

Death 0.32 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $2,524,600

Total 693 $2,838,300

Source: EPA Calculations. Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1 “No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corre sponds to the NPDS category of “No effec t .”

The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 to 2.8 million. Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is between Formatted Table

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

200 $10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 million and $21.3 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied.

There are limitations to these estimates. As disc ussed above we expect that a large proportion of accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of workers and handlers never get reported to a national poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Other workers with incomplete information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of reprisal. All indications are that underreporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward.

In Table 6.5-11, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting),

then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-11 shows a range of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to diff erent assumptions about underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and underreporting is equally likely in all poisoning cases, then the actual high-end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $28 milli on per year, substantially higher than those

estimated here reported above , which assume s assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these unreported acute exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates vary by severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, then the effects of underreporting would be correspondingly lower. For example, if deaths were never under-reported, but all other severity levels of illness were under-reported, the actu al high-end estimate of the value of prevented poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5.7 million per year. This is because the value of a statistical life is so high, the results change dramatically with changes in the estimated number of deaths prevented. Later in this chapter we will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, which is a plausible estimate

. based on the underreporting studies discussed in Section 6.5.2.

Table 6.5-11. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about Underreporting

Share of Cases Reported Low-End

Estimate of

Prevented Cases Low-End

Estimate of

Benefits High-End

Estimate of

Prevented Cases High-End

estimate of

Benefits

100% 296 $1,159,400 693 $2,838,400

50% 592 $2,318,800 1,386 $5,677,800

25% 1,184 $4,637,600 2,772 $11,353,600

20% 1,480 $5,797,000 3,465 $14,192,000

10% 2,960 $11,594,000 6,930 $28,384,000

Source: EPA Calculations Formatted Table

Inserted Cells

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

201 All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section. There is no attempt to measure the willingness to pay to avoid sympto ms, which is likely to be substantial; we calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers.

It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005).

Some of the proposed requirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, requirements on who can train workers, changes to the content of warning signs, and the requirement that a handler suspend or cease applica tion if a person enters the treated area. The quantified benefit estimates presented in this sec tion are not adjusted for this change. This is because most of the delayed changes, such as tr aining materials on how to safeguard the families of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up data used for estimating illnesses, as discussed

in that section. Of the cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only six would possibly have been prevented by the individual items that are required two years after signature of the rule. In all cases the relevant provision is that an application be suspended if a person enters the treated area. In at least th ree of these six cases, other provisions of the proposed rule would likely have protected against th e exposure. If all six cases are classified as unlikely to be prevented until year three, the quan tified estimates of benefits change slightly. They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in estimates is relatively small, however; annuali zed benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 and $30,000 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates

are used.

The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects.



### 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pestic ide Exposure and Risks to Workers

and Handlers

In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

202 effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning

surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects to farmworkers, pesticide handle rs and their families from pe sticide exposure. Following this section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) to chronic health conditions, i.e. , chronic cases avoided due to the rule.

It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information linking pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the statistical associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time.

While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic health effects in the p eer-reviewed literature. Typically several epidemiology studies conducted over time, using di fferent study designs, and taking place within different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are usually required

before researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. The environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA belie ves additional causal lin ks between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human populatio n will be provided over time.

Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between realworld pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposurechronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in the scientific peer reviewed literature, and resear ch is ongoing. The brea dth and depth of this collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as probable carcinogens. Research is underway to determine if other pesticides are also carcinogenic. There is a large body of epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, neurological, respiratory, fertility , behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result from pesticide exposure, but the st ate of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure.

There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by federal governments in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hypotheses to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is the Agricultural Health Study funded by the Na tional Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, including private and commercial pesticide appli cators and their spouses, investigating a broad*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

203 array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate

links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, Nordby et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean Multi-Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk (Yoo et al ., 2002). The National Cancer Institute r ecently initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011).

Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is complicated by many factors. These include exposu re to multiple chemical s, not just pesticides; exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e. , intermittent or sustained; and multiple routes of exposure, e.g. , dermal and inhalation. Many epidemiologic studies that include certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, label use of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al ., 2006). These certified applicators that form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural

workers and handlers.

Another complicating factor is that, over time, EP A and others, such as state governments, have implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, revised re-entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today contribute to the general body of scientific kn owledge, not all epidemiologic research would necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, ch anges in pest pressure, agronomic practices, and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic effects with typically long latency periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with caution when appl ied to current regulatory questions.

Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early exposures may occur from pesticides

that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take home” exposures, where an agricultural worker brings pesticide residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). Because one of the changes in the rule is an increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of exposure should be reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including

children.

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

204 exposure, and in some instances shows the importance of exposure mitigation for individual pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker or handler exposures when the current state of the science does not support action on individual

chemicals.

Later in this section, EPA summarizes some of the research on chronic health effects from pesticide exposure that have shown possible li nks to blood and prostate cancers, neurological

effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention defi cit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes, and respiratory problems like asthma. Although

several other associations have been measured in the literature, these are selected for discussion here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reporte d findings suggests that the long term health of agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of be nefits from a subset of disease reductions from reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8.



### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks

Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer-review bodies, there is a wide ra nge of literature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides and those with dioxin contaminants), but classi fies non-arsenical pesticides as probable human carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999). However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer.

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric

cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et al ., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al

., 2010 2010a ; Van

Maele et al ., 2011, Wigle et al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between pesticide exposure and these cancer effects.

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

205 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009).

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang

, 2009).

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell

et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair

and Chui

, 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certainty at this time. Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general population, Koutros, et al . ( 2010 2010a ) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a population-based case-control study in Sweden, including increased risks for users of glyphosate (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers, however additional research is necessary to under stand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the

risk of these cancers.

In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies with statistically significant results. Several case- control studies looked at children that had been exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose parents used insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether population bias was a factor in

the results of this review.

In the Bassil et al . review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

206 Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers ’ s workers’ children. They found no evidence of a direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other significant related exposures.

Prostate Cancer

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of prostate cancer which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al

., 2010 2010a ). Case-control analysis within the AHS suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al .. 2003). Additional followup within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007;

Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway that may shed light as to the potential role of ge netic variation in the association. This work is not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the associa tion between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010b). Although these genetic variations do not fully explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly due to differing study designs used.

In investigations of farmworker populations, pros tate cancer associations have also been found. For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer.

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer among those who reported using higher amounts of fo ur pesticides over their working lifetime. This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed to distinguish clear causal pathways. Howeve r the study is supportive of previous work*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

207 concerning an apparent increased risk of prosta te cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in

the AHS.

Lung Cancer

There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004).



### 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects

Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are preliminary investigations other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general neurological health (discussed below). To th e extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health

effects as well.

Neurological Function

The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al ., (2007), investigated the hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticid e exposure. Study partic ipants included licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of PD in those who reported ever using pesticides , and a “strong association” with PD for thosewho personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a doseresponse relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study hasrecently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant selfreporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011).

In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, and reported a positive associatio n in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past exposures of pesticides on the job.”*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

208 Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non-cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increas e in one or more neurological abnormalities in association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in preschool children, general malaise and mild co gnitive function, minor psychological morbidity, depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al

., (2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides.

In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic workers, Rothlein et al ., (2006) examined the possible neurobehavioral effects of low-level chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Residues of these pesticides were found in a substantial portion of workers’ homes. A significant correlation was observed between urinary metabolite levels and total organophosphate house dust levels. Poor performance on five neurobehavioral tests was associated with higher levels of the average combined thiomethyl metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found betweenenvironmental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the takehome pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices.

Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et
al ., 2011), using the AHS cohort reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of action, among other study characteristics.

Respiratory Function

Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma att acks is a lifelong problem, and several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et
al ., (2008) reported an association between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworkers, rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as

well. Salam et al ., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms.

Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

209 a short term, chronic br onchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an asso ciation that was stronge r among those with a high pesticide exposure event.



### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation between specific pesticide exposu re and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality

of national and international research efforts an d initial research results in conjunction with plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic

adverse health effects be yond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements

and standards.



### 6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Av oiding Potential Chronic Risks

The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, as well as reduce the non-occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed WPS changes are a way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational

health.

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

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family members or others. It is also impor tant not to underestimate the effects on those stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instability and falling, all of which result in difficulty performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is often fatal. The five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011).

Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic disease are great, in addition to the direct hu man cost of illness mentioned in the previous*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

210 paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have beenestimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slowergrowing NHL (Kutikova, et al. ) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al. ). These costs are very high, especially so

relative to the income for work ers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs, which is likely an under-estimate of

the true cost of illness.

The next section details the break-even analysis methodology, which considers the value of potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid

illness or death.



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

In this section, EPA presents a “break-even” analysis. This analysis shows that preventing a very small number of illnesses potentially asso ciated with pesticide exposure could result in benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits

and the estimated costs of the rule. As describe d below, preventing only a few pesticide-related illnesses annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate enough in benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the quantified estimate of benefits from reduced acute exposures. The break-even number of cases is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist overa long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider nonHodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma to demonstrate the potential benefits in the pr oposed rule from reducing exposures to chronic

illnesses. These are the illnesses for which ther e is evidence of an association with pesticide exposure and for which credible willingness to pa y estimates exist in the peer-reviewed literature or may be transferred.



### 6.8.1. Background

The break-even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness reduction to equal costs. A break-even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are lacking (OMB, 1996 2003 ). Although we cannot quantify net benefits of chronic disease avoided, we can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures to pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits.

Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in th e past when monetized estimates of all benefits could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified (EPA, 2010 2011 ; EPA,*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

211 20 0 6 2010b; EPA, 2006c ; EPA 2005 ; EPA

, 2000 ). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented illness or fatalities when th e number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to what is done here. These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial contamination of water. The break-even analysis here is based on associationsbetween pesticide exposure and chronic disease, where causal links are considered in the peerreviewed literature (see Section 6.7).

The costs of environmental regulations are traditiona lly much simpler to quantify than benefits to health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due to data limitations, as noted above, or the non-pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will likely accrue as a result of pesticide expo sure reduction from changes to the WPS.

Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the pu blic health benefit of pesticide exposure reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are unable to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While exposure reduction is an anticipat ed outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect, i.e. , they influence behavior associated with pesticide safety practices . Similarly, while statistical associations have been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 6.5, the causal nature of these associations have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease outcomes in the population ( i.e. , there is a multi-factorial web of disease causation), however it is plausible that some instances of disease (speci fic cases) could be attributable to pesticide exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers

and their families. Relative to other studies of th e effects of occupational exposure to chemicals, studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is also difficult with this mobile population, ma king it harder to identify exposure based on available application data (Zahm et al ., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993).

The break-even analysis is meant for illustra tive purposes. The analysis is designed to demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to equilibrate the total WPS costs using tradit ional and conservative assumptions from the environmental economics peer-reviewed literature.

In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology lite rature in which authors report observations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that discussion is information on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses initiated in the early 1990’s. The study is*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

212 recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively

validated. Because of these characteristics and st rengths, it is appropriate to use the results and findings of this study in evaluating pesticide ri sks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this study in collaborative projects with the AHS inve stigators with respect to algorithms, exposure assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound scientific principles and use of Bradford Hill criteria for evidence of causation. The work products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakehol ders. These data inform hazard identification and characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard ch aracterization, additional information outside of any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real-world exposure potential. The putative associations suggested in epidemiology studies like the AHS can help in evaluating potential health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic evaluation of possible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection

standard.



### 6.8.2. Method

For the acute estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found by evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break-even analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be preven ted for the benefits to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that different exposure-response profiles exist for specific pesticide-chronic health effect association.

As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, non-specific pesticide exposure. For this break-even exercise, however, we will consider only a few illnesses associated with chronic pesticid e exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. Numerous observational studies have been performed evalua ting pesticide exposure in association with

these human health outcomes. While scientific consensus has not established these associations as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these health outcomes are identified for the break-even analysis.

It should be emphasized that the diseases (can cer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing observational studies in the farm worker population.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

213 To estimate the break-even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on disease incidence, which describes how many case s of disease can be expected to be diagnosed each year.

Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of redu ced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure consists of four components:

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness;

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure activities; and

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering.

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in the WTP estimates presented here.

Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use

benefits transfer to find estimates. This in volves applying available estimates of WTP for preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed.

For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 2008 dollars) to value reduced mort ality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).

The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share ( PrevShare )

times the number of cases: ߱ ෍ ൌ ݏݐ݂݁݊݁݅ܤ	݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ

௜ ݏ݁ݏܽܥݒ݁ݎܲ ∙ ௜

௜ ߱෍ൌ

௜ ݁ݎ݄ܵܽݒ݁ݎܲ ∙ ௜ ݏ݁ݏܽܥ ∙ ௜

௜

where ω i can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the breakeven analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute benefits. The break-even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the estimated cost ( Cost ) and the estimated acute benefits ( Acute ):*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

214 ݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ ா஻ ݁.ݐݑܿܣ െ ݐݏ݋ܥ	 ൒

The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, Chronic BE . A simplifying assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for all diseases, which me ans that the percentage reduction in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with tobacco smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShare Lung Cancer is 10% of

the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10 – 15% of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al. , 2008).



### 6.8.3. Data

To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 a nd the quantified acute benefits of the rule were

estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesse s is available in the literature or publicly

available. Estimates of WTP are from the Econom ic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) ex cept for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used in the analysis are summarized in Table 6.8-1.

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates ther e are just over 70,000 new cases annually of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al ., 2011). An estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million was derived in the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Di sinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al . (1996), from which it was determined that the median risk-risk trade-off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non-fatal lymphoma was calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estimate of VSL of $7.9 million, we estimate a mean WTP for non-fatal ly mphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%).

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003 – 2007 (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases reported in 2007. The American Cancer Societ y (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 cases in 2012. In addition, CD C reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

215 on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2010). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et
al ., 2003; Koutros , 2010 et al ., 2010a ).

An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al . (2006) estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on

Kutikova et al . (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are justunder $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000.

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive. Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more aggressive and require more expensive treatment than those found in elderly men.

Chronic Bronchitis

Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chr onic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and resu lts in a long-term cough, shortness of breath, excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012).

Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per year (639 from the same source). These figures are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a di agnosis is that a patient has been identified within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using th e prevalence would be misleading, so for this analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfecti on Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

216 Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14 th leading cause of

death in the United States 8 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’ s, such as swallowing problems which lead to undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these complications, we take a conservative approach in this break-even analysis, and ignore the fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for Parkinson’s disease, because in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. The WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis is $800,000, which we will use for Parkinson’s disease.

There are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma above was based on a study by Magat et al . (1996), which compared risk-risk tradeoffs forcurable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a noncancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral nervous system that shares some effects with Pa rkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Us ing the method EPA used for estimating WTP for avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about $3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis.

Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States

Cancer Statistics , 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (Na tional Cancer Institute, 2012). Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that lung cancer preventions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non-smokers. This is because changes to the WPS are not expected to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, which is smoking.

8 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 ***

217There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peerreviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999)

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal lung cancer. This will be the same value ($800,00 0) used for Parkinson’s disease, because they come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) 9

.

Asthma

Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al ., 2012) , is another common respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al ., 2008)). Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 478,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 – 2009 divided by nine years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma (Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this analysis.

The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Co nor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perpetuity to represent preventing development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per

case 10

.

7 Cameron, DeShazo and Johnson (2009) provides estimates for reducing risks of lung cancer, both immediately fatal (called “sudden death” in the paper) and with a 10 year latency period for 3 different age groups. WTP for sudden death from lung cancer ranges from $220,000 to $9 50,000 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) prov ide 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 can cer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working paper and therefore illustrative only.

10 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Bl omquist, 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 ***

218 Table 6.8-1. Information for Calculating Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided

Disease WTP to Avoid Disease, ω i

($1000) Annual Cases Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 4,606 49,000 Fatal NHL 7,900 21,000 Curable Prostate Cancer 780 223,000 Fatal Prostate Cancer 7,900 29,000 Parkinson’s Disease 800 60,000 Curable Lung Cancer 800 36,000 Fatal Lung Cancer 7,900 190,000 Fatal Bronchitis 7,900 640 Asthma 73 480,000 Fatal Asthma 7,900 3,400
Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010); Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease Control, (2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations



### 6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation

In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $ 64 .6 million
and $ 75.1 million per year. A reasonable estimate of the be nefits from reduction in acute pesticide poisonings, after adjustment for underreporting, is from $10

– 1 5 million per year . (See

Table 3.6

– 10, with calculations based on 20

– 25% reporting). 62.1 million and $72.9 million per

year. To find the break-even point, we need to find the reduction in illness that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the quantified acute benefits. For this analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that genera tes benefits of at least the difference between the high value of the estimated costs ($ 75.1 72.9 million) and estimated acute benefits of $11.4 million, for a difference between estimated costs and quantified benefits of $ 63. 7 61.5 million.

Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.006% (and the rate of lung cancer by 0.0006%) is more than enough to provide benefits from re duced chronic illness that close the high estimate of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness would have an
estimated benefit of $64.6 millio n dollars annually. The results here obviously change based on assumptions about under-reporting of acute pesticid e incidents, because that changes the estimate

of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 3. 6

– 10 .5 –11 ). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% (0.0007% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $75.3 million in benefits is more than the total high-end costs estimate of $ 75.1 72.9 million.. The reduction to break-even with only $2.8 million in acute benefits is about 0. 0067 0065 %, and about 0.0059% to break even with a gap of $ 63.9 61.5 million.

Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.006% would reduce the number of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2.94 non-fatal and 1.26 fatal cases per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 13.38 non-fatal and 1.74 fatal*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

219 cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.6 per year; reduce the number of fatal bronchitis cases by 0.04 per year , and the number of cases of as thma by 28.8 cases, and fatal asthma cases by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the reduction in other diseases, or 0.0006%, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average of 0.22 non-fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year.

Of course, those percentage reductions ar e based on the number of chronic illness cases nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily e ffect a much smaller po pulation, farmworkers and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break-even chronic benefits will not change, they will represent a higher per centage of illness among this smaller population,

which we describe below.

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and disease described above and in Section 6.5. However, we do not make that assumption here. Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. The share is about 0.75%, based on the 2,323,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers required to reach the break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0.8% (0.08% for lung cancer), will generate $64.8

million in benefits

. , more than required to reach the break-even point. Across all diseases, the reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 8,000 cases that might occur. Table 6.8-2 shows

the calculations for farmworker cases. The estima ted farmworker cases are 0.75% of the annual cases for the United States, and the break-even cases are the number of cases that prevented to reach the breakeven point. In dollar terms the $64.8 million per year to break even represents an annual WTP per farmworker of less than $28.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

220 Table 6.8-2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis

Disease Annual

Cases Incidence (per 100,000) 1 Annual Cases

Farmworkers 2 “Break-Even”

Avoided Cases Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.95

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. 2 5 3 22 3
Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,430 1.14 3

Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.04 Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3,611 28.89 Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 26 0.21

Source: EPA calculations.

1 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census

Bureau, 2011).

2 Based on incidence rates for farmworkers being equa l to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence

rates may be higher; see the text.

3 R eductions Rate of Reduction for lung cancer are is only 10% of the reduction rate for other illnesses;

see in this case a reduction of 0.08% for lung cancer and 0.8% for the text. other diseases

It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break-even analysis is plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8-2, the number of cases needed to reach the break-even point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to the population at large. As discussed in Section 6.6, there is a possible association betw een the diseases discussed here and pesticide exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach the break-even point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general population. For this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide a pplicators and their spouses. This cohort is healthier, better educated and wealthier than th e farmworker population in general. Although farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite diffe rent: farmworkers may be more likely to be exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. Pesticide handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to certified applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be exposed than are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against pesticide exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of these differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher or lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these

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

221 For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al . (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.24 11 . Using the 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the AHS population.

If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence rates shown in Table 6.8-2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. population; for prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result in death. Because only males get prostate cancer, the inci dence rate among males is twice as high, with 223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100 ,000. At the higher rate, we should expect about 1,913 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate.

The break-even number of cases of non-fatal prostate cancer with a 0.8% reduction among farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163.55, s till well above the general population level.

A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break-even number of cases is about 1.75 annually. To reach the high-end reduction the incidence rate among farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. ( 201 0 2010a ) report a standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would be about 18.6 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.95 cases annually would change the incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.44 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.90 per 100,000, still well above the rate we estimate for the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For Parkinson’s disease, van der Markl et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5 among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm women in the AHS, Hoppin et al . (2008) reported an incidence ra te ratio for asthma to 1.46 for those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per

11 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent studies (Koutros, et al

., 2010 2010a ), 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 ***

222 100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general population. Reducing cases to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to about 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma incidence rate would remain unchanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described above, even after reductions in cases among farmworkers to reach the break-even point, the rate of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general population.

As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer . For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al. , (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. ( 2007b 2007 ) reports an odds ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those are may not reflect the low-level chronic exposure relevant for the break-even analysis. However, if we assume the farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence rate is the same as the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate of the general population (Alavanja et al. , 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.08% ( only 10% of the reduction for other diseases), the change in th e estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.03 per 100,000 for fatal lung cancer.

In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and quantified acute benefits from the rule are smal l. The reduction in cases relative to the farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to

farmworkers.

There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break-even analysis is necessary. Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break-even point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred.

These diseases discussed here are chronic conditio ns that may have long latency periods of 5-15

years, i.e. , a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.7% to 0.98%. At a 7% discount rate, the reduction to reach the break-even point would reach 1.20%.



### 6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

223 The break-even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

224 

## Chapter 7. Pa perwork Burden

Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of complying with regulations that require firms or i ndividuals to file reports, maintain records, or otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, in conjunction with this action, using the same para meters and data as utilized in this Economic Analysis. See Appendix B.

The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8, 355,847 316,993 hours. This is an increase of 6, 579,716 541,862 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. The increase in burden is due to both program changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and frequency of required information exchange. The program changes

include modifications to restrictions in field en try activities during restri cted entry intervals; increased hazard communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); increased posting of pesticide application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to better information available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates.

The estimated burden represents the total to co mply with the full WPS, including all proposed revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions.

Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on the establishment and accessible for inspection.

There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed rule imposes any requirements on the Agency.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***225Accounting StatementRule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard RevisionsCategory Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate SourceBENEFITSMonetized Benefits$70–80million/year$67.6 million/year> $93million/yearMonetized Benefits fromAvoided acute pesticideincidents$10–155 – 14million/year$1.2.8million/year$28 million/year EA Chapter 6.5Reduced effects of chronicpesticide exposure$64.8 million/year$64.8 million/yearEA Chapter 6.8Quantified BenefitsQualitative BenefitsWillingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond costof treatment and loss of productivity.Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure toworkers,handlers, andfarmworker families.EA Chapter 6Break-even analysis of thereduced effects of chronicpesticide exposureAnnual chronic benefits necessary to break-even $61.5 million.Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break-even point: less than 0.8%among farmworkers.Annual break-even WTP per farmworker: less than $28.EA Chapter 6.8COSTSMonetized Costs$543–636546 – 640million over 10 yearsat 3% discount rate$62 –7273million/year$39.9million/year$74.175million/yearEA Chapter 5.2Quantified CostsFormatted:List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0",Hanging: 0.13", Bulleted + Level: 1 + Alignedat: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"Formatted Table*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***226Qualitative CostsTRANSFERSnoneCategory Effects SourceState, local, and/or tribalgovernmentsNone. State and tribal governmentsresponsible for enforcement butrevisions will not change level of effort.Small businessNo significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.The rule will affect over 200,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhousesand several hundred small commercialentitesentitiesthat are contracted toapply pesticides.Impact less than 0.1% of the annualvalue of sales or revenues for theaverage small entity. Highest anticipated impact less than 1% of annualsales.EA Chapter 5.4Impact on JobsThe 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 toincrease by $60, but this is about 0.25 percent of the cost of a part-timeemployee.EA Chapter 5.3*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

227 

## References

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C Bailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012. Trends in asthma prevalence, health care us e, 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. Occupati onal Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environm ental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer 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.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Bl air A., Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 1;157(9):800-14.

American Association of Poison Control Centers, undated. NPDS Annual Report Terminology, http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/Ne wsMediaResources/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 Childre n 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 f ilters explain underreporting. American Journal of Public

Health , 92: 1421–1429. Formatted: Section start: Continuous*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

228 Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Su rveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Fu ture Directions, Journal of Public Health Policy, Summer:9(2).

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AOWollitzer, 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. Ca n 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 agricultur al health study. Annals of epidemiology, 15(4), 279-285.

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epid emiologic 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.r equests/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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

229 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

.

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 organo phosphate pesticides.

Pediatrics . Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect

. 113 12 1802-1807.

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorin a, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2009.

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331-49.

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L 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 childre n 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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

230 Calvert GM, WA Alarcon, A Chelminski, MS Crow ley, R Barrett, A Correa, S Higgins, H Leon, J Correia, A Becker, R Allen, and E Evans. 2007. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers

Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth De fects Closely Grouped in Time and Place— Florida and North Carolina, 2004–2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007):

787-791.

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 St ates. 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, athttp://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13

. Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983):

396-400.

Cherlor Manufacturing Company, Inc. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.cherlor.com

. Accessed May 8, 2008.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

231 Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. JAgromedicine . 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285;

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male participants in the Agricu ltural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives

, 118(1):92-6.

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS Felknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and MS Vela Acosta.

2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmwo rker Adolescent Populations: Implications for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep . 120(6): 622–629, Nov–Dec.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC 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/ProgramsandActiv ities/OccupationalHealth/OccupationalHealth Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx . Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Repo rting Database mainta ined by the National Association of State Departments of Agri culture and EPA at the Washington State University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/

. Curl CL, RA Fenske, JC Kissel, JH Shirai, TF Moate, W Griffith, et al . 2002. Evaluation of take-home organophosphorus pesticide 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, andMC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harris on. 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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

232 Dick FD, G De Palma, A Ahmadi, NW Scott, GJ Prescott, J Bennett, et al . 2007. Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism: the Geoparkinson study. Occup Environ Med. 64(10):666–672.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor,

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Duffy, M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa . Iowa State University Extension and Outreach publication FM-1712, revised January. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf

. D&B. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Beha vioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol . 165(12):1397-404. Epub 2007 Apr 3.

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8.

EPA. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table . Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March. www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler-exposure-table.pdf

.

EPA. 2010. EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf

EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pag es/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA, 2010b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of Water (4607-M) EPA 815-R-10-001 June 2010. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfec tion/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2009. WPS Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report 2008. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 2008. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline . Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/ 2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf

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

233 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 Protectio n Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. What Employers Need to Know . EPA/735-B-06-002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005, Reprinted June 2006.

EPA, 2006c. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. Office of Water (4606-M)

EPA 815-R-06-014 October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/ gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf

EPA, 2005. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Office of Water (4606-M) EPA 815-R-06-001 December 2005, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lt2/upload/2006_03_17_disinfection_lt2_an aylis_lt2_economic_main.pdf

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposure , Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2002. At http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis . Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 8. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0046-0013.

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer

. 123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT

Holland. 2004. Association of in uter o 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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

234 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 pesticid es, farming, well wate r, and rural living. Neurology . 50:1346–1350.

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency Shower.http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARDIAN-EQUIPMENT-Emergency-Shower4HRJ8?Pid=search . Accessed August, 2013.

Hammitt JK, and J-T Liu. 2004. “Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73-95.

Hancock DB, ER Martin, GM Mayhew, JM Stajich, R Jewett, MA Stacy, et al . 2008. Pesticide exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family-based case-control study. BMC

Neurol . 8:6.

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April.

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706.

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376

. Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al . 2007. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am

J Ind Med 50:969–979.

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of

illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders , 20(11):1449-54, Nov. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641

. Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers . At http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html , accessed February, 24,

2011.

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai. 2007. Morbidity Valuation wi th 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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

235 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

. DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

, 52(11):1098-105.

Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010 2010b . 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 Journal of Epidemiology , 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882

. Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ

Health . 22(1):14-26, Feb.

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Ar ning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States 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 2004 . Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

236 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 Cros s, 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.

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, Rundle A., Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment, Am J Public Health. 2011 Jan;101(1):63-70.

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman. 2000. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home Exposure Pathways.” Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302.

Machlin, SR, and K Carper. 2007. Expenses for Office-Based Physician Visits by Specialty,

2004 . Medical Expenditure Panel Surv ey, Statistical Brief #166. At http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_ files/publications/st166/stat166.pdf . Accessed April 29, 2008.

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health Perspect , 114:1838-42

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppi n JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;121(8):1799-805.

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American children: the CHAMACOS study . Environ Health Perspect . 118(12):1768-74, Dec.

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ

Med . 45:249-258.

NAAA. 2008. Elementary Level Curriculum Guide. National Agricultural Aviation

Association. At http://www.agaviation.org/s ites/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, Un ited States Department of Agriculture. Updated February 2010. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/

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

237 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 Agricult ure. Issued June 2004. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

.

NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agricult ure. Issued March 1999. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php

.
National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveilla nce Epidemiology and End Results, National Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012.

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Ep idemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011.

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work

Environ Health . 31(2):89-96, April.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program . Updated February 2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program

. Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program . Updated February 2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program

. Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program . February 2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program

. Oborain. 2013. Outdoor shower with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/ . Accessed August, 2013.

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics , Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 667-683, December.

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4

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

238 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.o rg/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

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201.

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Ki dd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health , 22: 314–320.

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 1999. Management of Pesticide Poisonings , Fifth Edition,

available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, Neurotoxicology. 2011 March; 32(2): 268–276.

Rosenbaum, S, and P Shin. 2005. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance Coverage and Access to Care , Kaiser Family Foundation. Available here: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Mi grant-and-Seasonal-Farmworkers-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and-Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sanatana, and L McCauley. 2006. Organophosphate exposure and neurobehavioral performance among agricultural and non-agricultural Hispanic workers. Environ. Health Persp . 114:691-696.

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health . Special Issue (1):159-169.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

239 Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32.

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu-Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and Children's Health Study, Early-life environmen tal risk factors for asthma: findings from the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J . 22(3):507-12, Sept. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143

. Salazar MK, M Napolitano, JA Scherer, and LA McCauley. 2004. Hispanic adolescent farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res

. 26(2):146–166.

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 ***

240 Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72.

Thun, MJ, LM Hannan, LL Adams-Campbell, P Boffetta, JE Buring, D Feskanich, WD Flanders

et al . 2008. "Lung cancer occurrence in never-smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22 cancer registry studies." PLoS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008).

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41.

Tuthill. 2008. Product and pri ce lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com . Accessed May 8, 2008.

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries

and Illnesses . Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government Printing

Office.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2011. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . PubMed Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/ . Accessed September 20, 2011.

University of Florida (2008-09) Interactive 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 Parkin son 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 Cent ers 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 Environmenta l 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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

241 Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev . 11(3-4):242-59, Mar.

Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody, and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer
Treatments, CANCER ; Published Online: December 21.

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Appli cation, and Some Pesticides: Summary of Data Reported and Evaluatio n (1991). Available here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.

Yang, RC, and PK Mills. 2009. Proportionate cancer incidence in the Laotian population of California, 1988-2006. Cancer Causes Control . 20(6):1011-6, Aug.

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92.

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Brad man, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “O ccupational 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 Al varado, 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.