# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

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 20460i



## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... iv

Chapter 1. Introduction

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

1.1 Background

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

1.2 Problem Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

................................ ................................ ...................... 3

1.2.3 Market Failure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 5

1.3 Affected Communities

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

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

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

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

1.4 Overview of Final Regulation

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

1.4.1 Statutory Authority

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

1.4.2 Need for Federal Regulation

................................ ................................ ............................... 11

1.5 Changes from the Analysis of Final Revisions

................................ ................................ ............. 11

Chapter 2. Final Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

................................ ................................ . 12

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pest icide Safety

................................ ......................... 1 2

2.1.1 Non

- regulatory Approaches

................................ ................................ ................................ 12

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

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

2.2 Informing Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

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

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training

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

2.2.2 Hazard Communication

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

2.2.3 Notification

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

2.3 Protecting Workers and Pesticide Handlers

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

2.3.1 Minimum Age

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

2.3.2 Entry Restrictions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25

2.3.3 Personal Protective Equipment

................................ ................................ .......................... 26

2.4 Mitigating the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

................................ ................................ .............. 27

2.4.1 Decontamination Supplies

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27

2.4.2 Emergency Assistance

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 29ii

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 30

3.1 Overview

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

3.2. Methodology and Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34

3.2.1 General Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34

3. 2.2 Regional Groupings

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37

3.2.3 General Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 38

3.3 Cost of Final Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46

3.3.1 Pesticide Safety Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47

3.3.2 Hazard Communication

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61

3.3.3 Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 68

3.3.4 Age

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 82

3.3.5 Entry

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 88

3.3.6 Personal P rotective Equipment (PPE)

................................ ................................ ................. 90

3.3.7 Decontamination Supplies

................................ ................................ ................................ 101

3.3.8 Total Cost of Final Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 105

3.4 Impact on Jobs and Employment

................................ ................................ .............................. 109

3.5 Small Business Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 110

3.5.1 Industry Profile

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 111

3.5.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

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

3.6 State Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 115

Chapter 4. Benefits of the Revised Rule

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

4.1 Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 118

4.2 Who is at Risk?

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

4.2.1 Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

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

4.2.2 Children and families

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

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

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

4.3.1 Acute Exposures and Effects

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

4.3.2 Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

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

4.4 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

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

4.5 Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

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

4.5.1 Methodology and Data

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

4.5.2 Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

................................ ................................ .......... 129iii

4.5.3 Pesticide Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 140

4.5.4 Value of Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 147

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

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

4. 6.1 Cancer Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 162

4.6.2 Non

- Cancer Health Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 165

4.6.3 Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

................................ ................................ ................. 166

4.7 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

................................ ........................ 166

4.8 Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

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

4.8.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 168

4.8.2 Method

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 169

4.8.3 Data

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

4.8.4 Break

- Even Estimation

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

4.8.5 Break

- Even Conclusions

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

Chapter 5. Paperwork Burden

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

Accounting Statement

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

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 184iv



## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S

E xecutive Summary

EPA is finalizing revisions 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 fi nal changes to the WPS to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

.

Pesticides are designed to control living organisms, i.e. , weeds, insects, fungi, and their use is inherently risky

. T heir use , however, is also beneficial to improve crop quality and yield in agriculture

. Based on an analysis of occupational pesticide incidents reported to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, there are an estimated 1,810 to 2,950 pesticide incidents annually on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. Acute symptoms from

overexposur e 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 exp osures result in death. Occupational incidents are probably indicative of a larger number of cases where pesticide safety practices are not fully followed resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, and possibly bystanders and non

- target organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and risk management. Even minor errors in pesticide application may lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, which is associated with long

- term health issues that are po tentially 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: asymmetric information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions ; this may result in

unintended or u ndesirable amounts or kind s of use for a given pesticide that result in negative consequences for society and/or the environment. If the market fails to provide incentives to develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure.

In conjunction with various non

- regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to

reduce the ris ks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant tov

(1) inform 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 unavoidabl e pesticide exposure, including accidents.



### Costs and Benefits

EPA estimates the incremental cost of the revisions to the WPS to be between $ 60.2 and $ 66.9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. The critical factor in the estimation of to tal cost is the number of agricultural establishments, workers, and handlers affected by the WPS and costs could range from $41.5 to $81.0 million. The cost stream is expected to be constant or nearly constant; as a result, the choice of discount rate wil l not greatly affect the estimated

annualized costs. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 40.0 and $ 81.0 million per year , with the most likely range to be between $56.2 and $66.9 million per year

. The majority of t he costs

, $ 53.0 to $ 62.2 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire workers and/or pesticide handlers and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United States. The approximate ly 2,000 c ommercial pesticide handling establishments, which are contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost of about $1. 9 million per year

. F arms relying solely on family labor that use pesticides may collectively bear costs of a bout $ 1.4

million per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $3 0 per year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced illness from exposure to pesticides, are likely to exceed $ 6 7 million per year in terms of avoided costs associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases associated with occupational pesticide exposure

, although the amount we can quantify is much less

.

The estimated t otal incremental cost is considered an upper bound, primarily because of the assumption that all requirements are applicable to nearly all employees of affected farms even though the WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor for crop production . Muc h of U.S. agricultural labor is mechanized and many establishments engage in livestock production in addition to crop production

. EPA assumes that nearly two million employees reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture are covered, while USDA estimates th ere are just over one million farmworkers, including 288,000 agricultural service workers employed through labor contractors. The lower bound estimate, using the estimate of one million workers,

is between $ 4 1.5 and $ 45.8 million annually

.

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 375,000 U.S. crop

- producing farms that hire labor. The cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of emp loyees employed. EPA estimates that large farms , defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average

almost 20 workers

, will incur costs of $ 310 to $ 355 per year, on average, using a 3% discount

rate. Large farms that are highly mechanize d but employ pesticide handlers may face incremental costs of $170 per year. Smaller operations that average three to four workers are estimated to incur costs between $ 120 and $ 140 per year, on average, which amounts to less thanvi

0. 1 percent of average a nnual revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final rule. The impact on farms that rely on family labor and use pesticides is driven by changes in certain requirements for personal protective equipment . EP A estimates that approximately 11,000 farms out of over 500,000 farms that use pesticides , but do not hire workers or handlers, will be impacted at a cost of about $130 per year . Commercial pesticide handling establishments may incur costs of $5 30 to $56 5 , although self

- employed commercial applicators will face costs of only about $230 per year.

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard Farms Hiring Workers

and/or Handlers Farm s, Owner

and Immediate Family labor Commercial Pesticide

Handling

Establishments Number Impacted 375,000 11,000 1,900

Annualized Cost $ 53.0

– 62.2 million $ 1.4 million $1. 9 million

Per

- Establishment

, Annual Cost Large farms $ 170

- $ 355

Small farms $ 70

- 140 $ 130 $230

- 56 5

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

 The rule will affect over 295 ,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 $5 0 per year, but this is less than 0.2 percent of the cost of a part

- time employee.

Benefits

The benefits of the final rule accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers

, and their

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

residues home

.

It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are p otentially exposed to such a wide range of pesticides with different toxicities and risks. However, the changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed literature to sug gest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness.vii

Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents

Based on analysis of reported pesticide illnesses , EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pes ticide 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 estimated to be between $ 58,000 and $2 6 0,000 annually (see Table 2) . However, this estima te is biased downward by an

unknown , but potentially significant degree. First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diag nosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database. The effect of underreporting can be significant. If only 10 % of poisonings are reported (within the range of estimates in the literature), the quantifi able benefits of the rule

would be abou t $ 2.6 million annually. 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.

Table 2. Acute Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard Category Description Comments

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents  $ 5 75 ,000

– 2 ,603

, 000 /year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide

incidents.

 $ 5 8 ,000

– 260 ,000 /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

There are a range of health effects associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure , and benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health effects. Although there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real world pesticide exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure

- chronic disease

associations have been tested in observational studies and reported in the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time.

EPA is not able to provide quantitative estimates of th e benefits from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides, but there are well

- documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the

final requirements will result in long term health benefits to agricultural workers

, pesticide

handlers , and their families . These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illness, resulting in a lower cost of he althcare, a healthier society and better quality of life.viii

The difference between the high

- end estimated cost of the rule, $66.9 million per year, and the estimated benefits from avoiding acute incidents, $2.6 million per year, is $64.3 million per year. EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of six chronic diseases, ranging from asthma to cancer, by under 0.8 percent within the farmworker community would be sufficient to generate total benefits equal to the cost of the rule. In general, farm fa milies with exposure to pesticides show higher incidence rates of these diseases than similar populations with little or no chronic exposure to pesticides. Thus, the slight decrease in incidence rates is a plausible outcome of revisions to the WPS, which include among other things improved worker safety training, better dissemination of information about pesticides used on

- farm, and greater protection from inadvertent exposures such as spray drift or inadequate protective equipment.

Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers to transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the final requirements are expected to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to c hildren are also impossible to quantify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, including the fetal stage,

reduci ng 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 3. Chronic Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

Catego ry Description Comment

Qualitative benefits

from reduced effects of chronic pesticide

exposure to workers, handlers, and

farmworker families A range of illnesses are associated with chronic pesticide exposure, including

 Non

- Hod g kins lymphoma

 Prostate Cancer

 Parkinson’s Disease

 Lung Cancer

 Chronic Bronchitis

 Asthma Break

- even analysis for only these illnesses

shows that , if the final rule changes prevent a relatively small number

of cases , then the total

benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs.1



## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S

Chapter 1

. Introduction

EPA is finalizing revisions to the Wo rker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 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 ta ke

- home pesticide exposure

. Some r evisions may also reduce the potential for exposure to bystanders, i.e. , people not employed by the establishment making a pesticide application, and exposure to non

- target plants

and animals. The changes represent revisi ons to the worker protection rule that w as first codified

in 1974 and revised in 1992

.

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the final revisions to the

WPS. This section provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, d escribes the reasons for EPA’s changes and the statutory authority for the rule, identifies entities that may be affected by the rule, and describes changes to the analysis since the economic analysis of the final rule. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the major changes in the WPS and discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the changes to different components of the regulations . Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the final revisions. Chapter 4 assesses the benefits expected from the

revisi ons as a whole, taking into consideration the complementary nature of many of the WPS’

components

. Benefits arise from reduced accidental and chronic exposures to pesticides and will accrue primarily to agricultural employees and their families

.

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 the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

. The remaining regulatory requirements and a full description of the regulatory changes EPA is making are addressed in the preamble to the final rule. This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in preparing an analysis required under the Paperwork Redu ction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501

- 21), which is summarized in Chapter 5.



### 1.1 Background

The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary regulations. The Certification of Pesticide Applicator s r egulation, 40 CFR Part 171

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

the use of restricte d use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking. The Worker Protection

Standard r egulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and employers of

commer cial pesticide handlers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers when pesticides are used in the production of agricultural plants

on crop

- producing farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS r egulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure2

to pesticides on an agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the W PS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm workers and pesti cide 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) mitig ate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accid ents. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pest icides among pesticide applicators, agricultural employees

, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as children. This economic analysis focuses on the revisions to the W PS rule

.

The WPS rule is directed toward the working condition s of two types of employees , which,

t hroughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those employees who work directly with agricultural pesticides

, e.g. , mix ing , load ing

, and apply ing pesticides, and performing other activities linked to pesticide applications . These employees may be directly exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people

, non

- target organisms , and the environment in general

. In principle, at least, pesticid e 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 , specifically tasks associated with hand labor

. Workers are potentially exposed to pesticides t hrough c o ntact with treated plants, resid u es left on other surfaces, or through the air or water on the farm or other operati on. Without regulations such as the WPS , worker s may have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be expose d o r even if they are exposed.

Changes to WPS will largely impact two types of employers who are responsible for providing required protections to their employees: agricultural employers, ( e. g. , owners and managers of farms, greenhouses, nurseries and forest ry o p erations ), and commercial employers ( e. g. , owners and managers of commercial pesticide handling establis hments ) that provide pest control services to the agricultural sector . Some revisions may also pertain to other agricultural establishments that do not hire labor, i.e. , that rely on labor from the immediate family, and to

other commercial agricultural services such as private crop advisors.

The benefits of the revisions to the WPS rule accrue primarily to agricultural workers

, pesticide

handlers , and their families . The changes to the rule will provide more information about the potential risks of pes ticide exposure and ways workers 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 requirem ents include current worker protection standards and pesticide

- specific use restrictions found on the product label. However, despite these safeguards, occupational pesticide poisonings still occur . An EPA review of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) database on occupational pesticides exposure provides an estimate of 1,810

– 2,950 occupational pesticide exposure3

incidents occur annually on establishments where WPS requirements apply (more detail is provided in Chapter 4). Ma ny of these poisonings are preventable and there may be reasonable measures to reduce exposure in situations where they are not avoidable. Moreover, incidents are likely to reflect a larger number of cases where employers or employees fail to follow label instruction or make mistakes in applications. Although not all mistakes or failures result in

indentifiable incidents and acute illness, even minor errors may increase exposure

. C hronic exposure to pesticides can have adverse effects

, as documented in EP A risk assessments; further, epidemiological studies have noted associations between repeated exposure and several serious,

chronic diseases

.



### 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

There are inherent risks associated with the use of pesticides, which are substances that are toxic by design. 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 in many ways and can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al

., 2010). E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute 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 (R oberts and R eigart, 2013 ). 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; Robe rts and Reigart (2013) list almost 100 different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure.

While illnesses resulting from pesticide exposures to workers and handlers are underreported (see the discussion in Section 4.5. 2 ), there are peer

- reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. Calvert, et al . (2008), for example, looked at reported pesticide poisoning inciden ts among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non

agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample )). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide

related illness cases in th e California surveillance system were agricultural 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 (ab out 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact.



### 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 children and families may suffer illness4

from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for thi s 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 via clothing or footwear of the 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 and childhood exposure may have particularly imp ortant effects on neurological development of children (see Section 4.2.2 and Eskenazi et al

., 2007 ; Young et al ., 2005 ; Rauh et al ., 2006 ; Engel et al ., 2007 ; Lovasi, et al ., 2011 ; Bouchard et
al . 2010 ) , 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 multiple low

- level exposures as well as an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy.

While only a small number of pest icides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer

- review bodies, there is a wide literature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. 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 (se e below and Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.6) . However, the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduc ing general pesticide exposure

.

Synthesizing across the studies of carcin ogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles

and meta

- analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers, specifically non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia; among solid tum ors (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

., 2010a; Van Maele

- Fab ry et al

., 2011, Wigle et al

., 2009, Turner et al

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

Blair and Beane

- Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta

- 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, a nd cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that

meta

- analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane

- Freeman, 2009).

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pestic ide exposures and cancers of the lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health5

Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al

., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al

., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 2 009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically,

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills et al.

, 2009).



### 1.2. 3 Market Failure

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

infor mation and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, there may be a socially undesirable amount or kind of use. If the market fails to provide incentives to develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a r ole 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 ex posure.

Asymmetric Information

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 families if pesticide residues are transported to the home. Asymmetric information arises in two ways.

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the infor mation if not provided by the employer. Many who are employed in agriculture, for example, are not native English speakers;

an estimated 65 percent of agricultural employees speak little or no English (DoL, 2011

- 2012 ). 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 (DoL, 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 app ropriate 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 no t even be aware that they have been in contact with pesticides or in pesticide

- treated areas. 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 f ace given immediate priorities such as providing for their families and obtaining or retaining their job s . These issues can result in workers and handlers with insufficient information to make informed choices about their safety.6

Externalities

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pesticide exposure is that the party making the application decision does not bear all of the negative effects of a pesticide application, including the health effects on others. This is a classic externality that c an 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 s eek 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 b ecause they oc cur over time, i.e. , are latent or associated with 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. , information about exposure or toxicology, which employers 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 requir ements are most useful when they reflect current knowledge.

Environmental Justice Issues

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

 Because of their o ccupation, 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 workfor ce make it difficult for workers and handlers to participate in making decisions about the risks they face as they perform their jobs.

 Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non

agricultural workers. Children and adolescents may be 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.7

 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 4

.

According to the most recent data available from the National Ag ricultural Worker Survey (NAWS), 64 percent of agricultural workers in the United S tates were born in Mexico and six

percent in Central and South America ( DoL, 2011

- 20 12)

. A majority (69 percent ) of all survey respondents sp eaks Spanish as their primary language. Approximately 65 percent of this population speaks a little or no English; 38 percent cannot not rea d English at all and another 30

percent can only read English “a little.” Many have received only limited formal e ducation; on average, the highest grade completed by foreign

- born workers was seventh grade. Approximately 17 percent of the survey respondents were classified as migrant, having traveled at least 75 miles in the previous year to find a job in agriculture

. Only 17 percent of respondents lived in housing pr ovided by their employer and 55 percent rented housing from someone other than their employer.

In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do not have access to employer

- provided

health insurance

– in 2011

- 2012, only 21 percent of farmworkers reported having the option for employer

- provided health insurance. USDA research, based on earlier NAWS data, also reports that workers have difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment ( Ka ndel, 2008)

. 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 undocumented workers because they fear seeking treatment will lead to deportation or other adverse legal

action.

The NAWS found that 19 percent of workers and handlers surveyed earned less than $10,000 annually from agricultural work, and another 39 percent earn between $10,000 and $20,000 annually ( DoL, 2011

- 20 12)

. Ov er 55 percent of respondents reported a total family income below $22,500. USDA reports that the unemployment rate among farm workers more than doubled between 2007 and 2010, even as the level of employment increased slightly, suggesting

an influx of work ers from other sectors, such as construction (ERS, 2014). Real wages have largely been stagnant since 2007 after rising at 0.8 percent per year between 1990 and 2007 (ERS, 2014).



### 1. 3 Affected Communities

The primary entities that will be impacted by the final changes to the WPS are agricultural employees and their families, agricultural establishments (crop

- producing farms , nurseries and greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural pl ants and hire workers or handlers , and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s). Other affected entities

include farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop advisory services. S tate agen cie s , which are responsible for e nforcing the WPS and often provide training for workers and handlers , will also be impacted by the revision s t o these regulations

.8



### 1.3 .1 Agricultural Employees

The current rule is intended to protect worker s and handlers on crop

- producing farms, nurseries, and greenhouses from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most workers in forestry would generally not be in proximity to treated areas due to pesticide use patterns in forestry.

Pesticides of one type or another are used on many farms in the United States, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year. Based on data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014), EPA estimates that over 300 ,000 farms employing 1.8

million workers and handlers used pesticides in 2012. EPA estimates that within the farmworker population are over 300,000 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 375,000 agricultural establishments that hire labor will use pesticides, thus nearly two million agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of

adverse he alth effects at some point.

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the final rule through provisions

that would require agricultural employers 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 protective measures such as personal protective equipment , and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural pesticides. The costs

of the final rule are not generally expected to fall di rectly on workers and handlers , but there are likely to be cases where workers bear at least some of the costs

. Many workers engaged for harvest activities are paid by the amount of produce harvested. For t hem, time spent in pesticide safety training, for example, is time they cannot generate income.



### 1.3

. 2 Regulated Entities

For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish two 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 (CPHE s ). Within each type, we further distinguish between those relying on the owner and the immediate family for labor

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

the final 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 inf ormation.

Agricultural Establishments

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014), there were over 2.2 million agricultural establishments in the United States of which 482,000 hired labor . The WPS covers a subset of agricultural establishm ents involved in plant agricultur e . These include farms, livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations . A n

a gricultural 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.9

The WPS also covers self

- employed handlers, such as the operator of a farm or an immediate family member who applies pesticides.

Just under one million U.S. establishments used pesticides as part of the production system (NASS, 20 14 ) . Extrapolating from a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008), EPA estimates that about 872,000 agricultural establishments using pesticides produce crops whil e the rest are solely livestock operations . Of those, EPA estimates over

354

, 000 farms also hired labor, leaving approximately 51 8

, 000 farms that used pesticides but did

not hire labor . The latter farms appear to rely solely on immediate family labor and are exempt from most provisions of the WPS. The WPS also sets standards for engineering controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for some personal protective equipment (PPE) required on the lab el

.

The W PS, and any revisions to it, will primarily affect the establishments that use pesticides and hire labor for producing crops, and specifically for hand labor activities like weeding, pruning, and harvesting. Of the 354,000 crop

- producing farms estimated t o use pesticide s , about 50,000

are very small farms, with annual sales less than $100,000, primarily produce livestock and are unlikely to employ hand labor for cropping activities that are primarily grain and forage. This leaves an estimated 304,000 farm s that use pesticides and which are covered by the WPS. However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by non

- organic growers. Thus, EPA estimates the number of crop

- producing farms that hire labor and are likely to engage in

activities wi th hand labor, nearly 375,000 establishments, as the likely universe of farms covered by WPS requirements. Chapter 3.2. 3 discusses the affected entities in detail. For convenience, throughout this document, we refer to the affected 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 conventionally

grown crops and organic

- approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to WPS requirements.

Similar information on the number of entities using pesticides for forestry operations is not available. However, certain WPS requirements do not apply when treated areas are geographically distant from areas where workers are engaged in activity . Given forest production practices, pesticide applications and worker activities are commonly quite distinct and so WPS requirements would rarely imp act forestry operations.

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

EP A estimates that there are nearly 2,000 commercial firms that provide pest control services to agricultural establishments and which may be covered by the WPS and, therefore, affecte d by revisions to the requirements. Approximately 5,000 firms were identified under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 1 1 5 112, Support Activities for Crop Production, Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating. Within this group, we identified firms

listed under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions for weed control

services (before and after planting)

, crop dusting services, soil chemical treatment services, crop spraying services, crop thinning services (chemical), and crop disease control services.10

Further, there are nearly 90,000 commercial applicators certified to use Restricted Use Products

for agricultural plant production (CPARD, 2014) . EPA estimates, considering that some will b e employed in the commercial firms identified above, t hat there are about 42,000 small or self

employed handlers providing commercial services to the agricultural sector. See Chapter 3.2. 3

for detail.



### 1. 4 Overview of Final Regulation

EPA is finalizing r evisions to the requirements of the WPS to address the problems arising from inadequate information and externalities, to clarify required actions, and to reflect current knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses the revisions addressed in this analysis in more deta il. The preamble to the final rule explains all changes to the WPS. For this analysis, EPA organizes the

final requirements into eight categories.

Three categories primarily address the issue of incomplete information. Training requirements are designe d to provide general information to employees ; 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. T ogether, t hese requirements mean that agricultural workers receive appropriate safety information and know

when that information is most relevant in their work

.

Three categories address the externality issue and provide protections to employees working with pesticides. Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescents, whose developing systems may be more susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential risks of exposure, especially the long

- term effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are designed to reduce the possible adverse effects on workers who are in proximity either in time or space to a pesticide app lication. Requirements 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 revisions p e r tain to the provision of decontamination supplies and clarify existing requirements about pro viding emergency assistance

.



### 1.4 .1 Statutory Authority

This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) , 7 U.S.C. 136

- 136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7

U.S.C. 136w(a).11



### 1. 4 .2 Need for Federal Regulation

Under FIFRA, 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 re vised.

First, there are efficiency gains for state and local agencies responsible for implementing agricultural worker protection standards. Many states rely on the federal standards because data on pesticide effects are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and avoid a 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 ar e also potential efficiency gains for agricultural establishments when there is greater consistency in worker protection requirements across states. Many workers migrate through the agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at differen t times. If worker protection standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, workers may be confused about their rights and regulatory protections , which may put them at greater risk . Different notification requirements, in particular, that might pre sent information in different ways, would be particularly confusing. Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or supervisors who cross state boundaries may inadvertently be out of compliance if regulatory requirements

are inconsistent.

Ther e 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. 5 Changes from the Analysis of Final Revisions

EPA previou sly assessed the costs and benefits of the proposed revisions (BEAD, 2014). The analysis of the final revisions follows the same methodology ; however, there are other important changes. First and foremost, the final rule has been modified somewhat from t he proposed revisions as a result of information received during the public comment period on the proposal. A complete discussion of these changes is provided in the preamble to the final rule.

The cost analysis has been updated to reflect more current w age information and the price of materials required under the WPS and the revisions. The number of affected entities, including both farms and workers, has been updated with data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Finally, based on comments received on the proposal, a few of the scenarios, notably those pertaining to the use of respirators and closed pesticide delivery systems, were revised.

The analysis of acute benefits has also been revised. The analysis is based on more recent

incident data, as we ll as additional information from pesticide incident surveillance programs

.12



## Chapter 2

. Final Revisions to the W orker P rotection S tandard

This chapter provides a summary of the final revisions to the WPS and a discussion of the benefits provided by individual components of the final regulation. Changes to the rule that were proposed but not adopted are not discussed here

. The preamble to the final rule presents

a dditional detail s

. Chapter 3 estimates the costs of the re visions and Chapter 4 discusses the

benefits of the revisions as a whole

.

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

how the regulation helps promote worker safety

, i.e. , to inform workers, protect against

exposure
, or mitigate the effects of exposure. The changes to the regulation are addressed under

these three broad elements . Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses t he changes that will better

inform workers and handlers about protecting themselves from pesticide expo s ure, which comprise of three categories: training, hazard communication, and notification . The provisions that protect workers against the adverse effe cts 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) requirement s to protect against exposure

. T he final section

, 2.4, addr esses changes to the WPS that mitigate the adverse effects of contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response requirements. Please

refer to the preamble to the final WPS for a complete discussion of the chang es and the rationale for the Agency’s decisions

.



### 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

EPA’s p esticide w orker s afety p rogram is comprised of three major components:

 protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural w orker p rotection regulation and support activities;

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

 the n ational h ealth c are p roviders ’ pesticide i nitiative.



### 2. 1 .1 Non

- regulatory Approaches

T he Agency en gages in extensive non

- reg ulatory 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 netwo rk of partners including state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); university cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated community.

EPA funds pesticide sa fety 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 h as

a grant program to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to13

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

nationall y, and internationally, the grantee works with a varie ty of partners (community

- based organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care providers, regulators, subject matter

experts, ag ricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop creative community

- based actio n plan s to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including: workshops, hands

- on training, fact sheets, manu als, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars.

EPA partners with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to maintain the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those experienced by farmwor kers. These data have been useful in characterizing the benefits of the final rule, as discussed in Chapter 4.

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

EPA support s state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulate s the competency of pesticide a pplicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through grants to the cooperative

ext ension services in each state to support the training of applicators using RUPs

.

A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national h ealth c are providers ’

p esticide i nitiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the development of a manual for health care providers called “ Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning.” This resource outlines the health effects associated with different classes of pesticides and recommend s treatments b ased on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, EPA also works closely with th e Migrant Clinicians 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 tool s that health care providers need to deal effectively with pesticide

- related health conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and continuing education opportunities.

The WPS regulation complements EPA’s no n

- regulatory pesticide worker safety program activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and their families. In many cases, regulatory change was the result of consultation with stakeholders and industry participants on how to im prove 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 pesticide must not result in unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pes ticide in a manner inconsistent14

with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide

exposure. T he 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 typic al 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 requirements of the WPS complement the label by pro viding protections from this post

- application exposure. It establishe s 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 their fa milies, 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.



### 2.2 Inform ing Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

In the final regulation, EPA is revising the requirements for Pesticide safety training (Section 2.2.1)

, Hazard communication (Section 2.2.2)

, and N otification of agricultural workers and

handlers (Section 2.2.3) to better inform them of potential dangers related to pesticide exposure and how and when to avoid unsafe exposure . These measures work together t o provide workers

with important information about their working conditions and how they should act in those

conditions. For each of these areas
, a summary table of the existing, proposed, and final

re quirements is presented. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a discussion of expected benefits.



### 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training

In the existing and final regulations, pesticide safety training provides general information on pesticides, how workers and handlers may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure to pesticides, and what to do if exposed to pesticides. With the final rule, EPA is changing worker and handler training requirements and changing supporting requirements that include recordkeeping and training verification

. See the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on the requirements and the reasons for the Agency’s decisions.

Worker Training

Table 2.2

- 1 provides a summary of the existing, proposed, and final regulations that will be

revised. In both the existing and final regulations, pesticide safety training must be provided to all workers before they enter an area that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. Currently, h owever, the WPS provides an exemption in the case that full training cannot be provided before each worker’s first entry into such area s ; employers must provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information and full training must be15

complete befor e the sixth day of entry. 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. However, the result is that wo rkers may not be fully trained before engaging in hand labor. EPA estimates that nearly 100,000 workers do not

receive the full saf

e ty training before entering fiel d s recently treated with a pesticide. I n the final rule, full training must be provided be fore the first entry, with no grace period permitted. With this change, w orkers will have the full information they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure before en gaging in hand labor activities in or near a treated area . I n addition,

i t wil l prevent the possib ility that a worker never receives full training when moving from one

farm to another.

Under the current rule, workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. Revisions will require that workers receive the safety training every year. R etention of pesticide safety information is expected to improve with annual training rather than with the existing five

year cycle. Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better tha n untrained students in following protocols to preve nt infect ion s in themselves and their patients. Ultimately, the changes will improve workers ’ ability to protect

t hemselves from pesticide exposure

.

In the proposal, EPA considered eliminating certified applicators and handlers as qualified trainers for workers. However, many comments convinced EPA that certified applicators possess the necessary skills to provide training to workers. In the final rule, certified applicators are among the people qualifi ed to train workers, but trained handlers will not be qualified as trainers.

In the final regulation, worker training is expanded to include several new items: ways to reduce

take

- home pesticide exposure, worker rights ( e.g. , to a copy of training records) and protections ( e.g. , from retaliation)

, and the new WPS requirements. See Table 2.2

- 1. EPA’s understanding of the potential for pesticide residues to be transported to the worker’s home on clothing and

other work materials has increased since the WPS was last revised. Relatively simple measures to reduce transport can be used, but workers must be informed so that they can protect

themselves and their families. Training in the new WPS requirements, including an explanation on warning signs and their meaning, information provided in case of entry into a field under a

REI

, and the availability of hazard communication materials, will help to insure safety measures are followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reduci ng exposure to pesticides.16

Table 2.2

- 1. Existing , Proposed, and Final Worker Training Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Worker Training Frequency and Grace Period
Untrained workers receive, at a minimum, abbreviated training before entering a treated area.

F ull safety training before 6th day of entry into treated area.

Training every 5 years. Untrained workers receive, at minimum, essential Right

- to

Know information before entering a treated area

.

Ful l safety training before 3 rd day of field entry.

Annual training. Untrained workers receive f ull training prior to entry into a

treated area.

No grace period.

Annual training.

Training Content for Workers Basic pesticide safety training : 1. Possible exposures 2. Hazards

3. Routes through whic h pesticides can enter body

4. S igns and symptoms of poisoning

5. Eme rgency first aid for poisonings

6. Obtaining medical care

7. Decontamination procedures

8. Haza rds from chemigation

and drift

9. Haz ards from residues on clothing

10. Warnings about taking pesticid es or pesticide

containers home

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

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information

– Safety Data Sheets ( SDS )

 How to report suspected use

violations

 Additional employer requirements under the proposal Expand existing 11 basic safety training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information

– SDS

 How to report suspected use

violations

 Additional employer requirements under the final

rule

Criteria for Trainers of Workers
Training may be conducted by

 certified applicators,

 trainers of certified applicators,

 people who have completed “Train

- the

trainer” programs, and

 handlers Training may be conducted by

 trainers of certified applicators , and

 people who have completed

“Train

- the

- trainer” programs Training may be conducted by

 certified applicators,

 trainers of certified applicators, and

 people who have com

pleted

“Train

- the

- trainer” programs

Handler Training

The requirements in the final regulation on the frequency and content of handler training are

summarized in Table 2.2

- 2. In the final regulation, annual pesticide safety training is required

for handlers, rather than the existing requirement of every five years. With this change, the retention of pesticide safety information will be greater for annual training over the existing five

-17

year requirement. The expected benefits are improvements in han dlers’ ability to protect

t hemselves from pesticide exposure

.

In the final regulation, the content of handler training is expanded to include ways to reduce

take

- home pesticide exposure, handler rights, the content of Safety Data Sheets ( SDS ) , and the

new WPS requi rements. The new components of handler training that are not relevant to

workers are a definition and meaning of the “application exclusion zone,” proper procedures if

another person ent e r s the application exclusion zone , and separate training on respirator use, fit

testing of respi rators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. Handler training will help insure safety measures are followed and that handlers understand their and their employer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to pes ticides.

Table 2.2

- 2

. Existing, Proposed, and Final Handler Training Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Training Frequency for Handlers Training every 5 years Annual training Annual training Training Content for Handlers 13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including safety information

2. Hazards

3. Routes through which pesticides can enter body

4. Signs and symptoms of poisoning

5. Emergency first a id

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. Regu latory 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 Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age

limit

 Entry exclusion zone requirements

 Requirements for respirator fit test, training and medical

evaluation

 Hazard information

– SDS

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification

In the existing regulation there is no requirement to keep records of training. In the final regulation, for both worker and handlers

, employers are required to document pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years. The information that must be recorded is listed

in Table 2.2

- 3. Note that the final regulation does not require documentation of the date of birth18

of the worker or handler. The employer may keep one record for each training session, provided that it contains all of the required information as well as the signatures of all trained workers and handlers. This recordkeeping requirement benefits both agricultural establishments and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements

have bee n met. The two

- year retention period recognizes that compliance reviews and

enforcement actions are not necessarily brought immediately.

In the final regulation, EPA’s optional verification card system is eliminated. However, states retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. The final regulation requires the employer to provide a copy of the training record if requested by the trained worker or handler. The employee can t hen provide the record to subsequent employers, which may help to reduce repeat training of workers and handlers who have already met the training requirement. This system is an improvement on the verification card approach since it provides subsequent em ployers with all the necessary information for their own records, which individualized cards did not.

Table 2.2

- 3

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Training Records Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Recordkeeping of Training for Workers and Handlers

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

 Names of workers /handlers trained, trainer and employer

 Date of birth of

worker/handler

 Date of training

 Training m aterials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of

worker/handler

 Documentation of trainer’s qualification Employer to keep records of worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers /handlers trained, trainer and employer

 Date of training

 Training m aterials used

 Acknowledg ement of receipt of training by signature of

worker/handler

 Documentation of trainer’s qualification

Verification of Training for Workers and Handlers Voluntary program a l lows for training verification c ards Provide verification in the form of a copy of the training record to

handler or worker Provide verification in the form of a copy of the record of training upon request by trained handler s or worker s



### 2.2.2 Hazard Communication

The requirements in the final regulation on hazard communication pertai n to the availability of

the information, the content to be provided , and recordkeeping . A comparison of the existing, proposed, and final requirements is shown in Table 2.2

- 4. See the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on the requirement s and reasons for the Agency’s decisions. The purpose of hazard communication is to inform workers and handlers of the specific chemicals that are used around their work areas and to provide them with information they may need to recognize symptoms of par ticular exposure and the ability to seek out further information if the employee19

desires. Notification that an application is to take place and warnings to avoid treated areas under a restricted entry interval (REI) are separate requirements.

In the existing and final regulation, agricultural employers are required to display information about pesticide applications at a central location for unhindered access by the employees and for 30 days following the end of the REI

. Currently, t he information mu st be displayed prior to the application if workers are present. The revised regulation requires information to be posted at

least 24 hours after the application end s but prior to any worker entering the treated area. This

revision reduces the likelihood of inac curate information being display ed

, since changes m a y be made to a pla n ne d application.

The content consists of information about the application: (i) the product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, (ii) the location and description of the area to be treated, (iii) the dat e and tim e the pesticide is to be applied, and (iv) the duration of the REI for the pesticide

. The final regulation makes two small revisions: the location and description of the a rea to be treated must include the crop (or site) treated and the date and time when the application ended

, which is when the REI begins. Further, the employer must display a copy of the SDS for the pesticide product applied

. The SDS provides a standardi zed source of information on the hazards of a particular chemical or product, the symptoms of poisoning, and

treatment information. The existing requirement provides workers with information about potential exposure, but does not provide specific hazard i nformation. Workers must use information about the product name and registration number to find information about the hazards and their ability to do so may be limited. Providing the SDS makes that information readily available.

This information can be complex, however, and merely having access to the information may not

be sufficient. In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an

incident or illness. 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. The final rule requires the employer to make access to or a copy of the information available on request to workers, handlers, or their designated representative , and treating medical personnel or persons acting on their direction . Further, because agricultural employment is highly seasonal, the final rule requires access to or a copy of the information be made available for workers no longer employed on the farm for the period that the records are required to be held.

In the final regulation, EPA requires the agricultural employer to maintain a copy of the pesticide specific application information and SDS for two years from the REI end date. As discussed in

th e training section above, the advantage of keeping records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both the employer and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may not be immediat ely obvious, a longer retention period is useful.20

Table 2.2

- 4. Existing, Proposed, and Final Hazard Communication Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Availability of Information Display information at a central location before each application occurs, or if no workers are on establishment, before next work period, and keep posted for 30 days from the REI end date

. Record information by end of day of application. Make a copy

availa ble during normal work hours upon request, to workers,

handlers and their authorized representatives

. Display information at a central

location before workers enter

the treated area or within 24 hours of the end of application, and keep posted for 30 days

from the REI end date

.

Make access to or a copy of the information available on request to workers, handlers, or their designated representative, and treating medical personnel or persons acting on their direction, while it is required to be on display o r retained on the

establishment. Pesticide Specific Information and Hazard Information For each application, display at a central location the following pesticide application

information:

 location and description of treated area;

 active ingredient, product name, registration number;

 time and date the pesticide is to be applied;

 the REI For each application, make available to workers, handlers

and their authorized representatives, a copy of the pesticide label, SDS and the following pesticide applicat ion

information:

 location and description of treated area;

 crop or site treated;

 active ingredient, product name, registration number;

 time and date the pesticide is to be applied

 the REI For each application, display at a central location a copy of the SDS and the following pesticide application information:

 location and description of

treated area , including crop or site treated;

 active ingredient, product name, registration number;

 times and date(s) the application started and ended;

 duration of REI

Recordkeeping No recordkeeping Keep for 2 years from REI end

date Keep for 2 years from REI end

date



### 2.2. 3 Notification

The WPS requires employers to provide workers and handlers with information about each pesticide application occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when to implement the precautions explained in pesticide safety training. There are four areas within this component. First, we discuss the requirements for restricted entry interval noti fication . The second area pertains to the notification to workers performing early entry tasks. Third , the requirements for the pesticide safety information display are discussed, and l astly, we discuss the requirements on information exchange between co mmercial21

handler employers and agricultural employers. A table comparing the existing, proposed and final requirements is provided following the discussion of each area . See the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on the requirements and reasons for the Agency’s decisions.

Restricted Entry Interval Notification

In the existing and final regulations, agricultural employers are required to provide warnings of areas under a REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Currently, all applications made indoors ( i.e. , greenhouses) must be posted. Warnings need not be given to a particular worker if, from the start of the application to the end of the re

- entry interval, the

worker would not be within one

- fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the handler who applied the pesticide. In the final regulation, warning signs must be posted for pesticides applications when the REI is greater than 48 hours for outdoor applications and 4 hours for greenhouse applicat ions. If the REI is equal to or less than 48 hours or 4 hours respectively, the employer has the option of posting warning signs or giving oral notification, unless the label requires both ( i.e. , double notification)

. See Table 2.2

- 5.

A NIOSH review of available information indicates that entry into a treated area under a REI is

the second

- leading cause of pesticide incidents, following drift from adjacent fields (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

sam e 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 remember to notify workers who are not present at the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers receive the appropriate notification. Thus, posting warnings for REIs longer than 48 hours is anticipated to reduce inadvertent entry into treated fields and reduce exposure to pesticide residues.

Table 2.2

- 5. Existing, Proposed, and Final REI Notification Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement REI Notification Outdoor production: Either oral

notification or post warning signs unless double notification is required by label Outdoor production: Post warning signs if REI is greater than 48 hours; otherwise option

for oral notification unless double notification is required by label Outdoor production: Post warning signs if R EI is greater than 48 hours; otherwise option

for oral notification unless double notification is required by label Indoor production (WPS Greenhouses): Post warning signs; additional oral

notification if double notification is required by label Post war ning signs if REI is greater than 4 hours; otherwise option for oral notification

unless double notification is required by label Post warning signs if REI is greater than 4 hours; otherwise option for oral notification

unless double notification is requir ed by label22

Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the existing and final regulations under certain narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact

, ” “no contact

, ”

“short

- term

, ” “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Under the existing rule, e xcept for entry under the “no contact” exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks have read the label or been informed of infor mation on the label related to human hazards or precautions, first aid and user safety, and other information related to the application, the early entry exception used, and early entry requirements . See Table 2.2

- 6

.

Table 2.2

- 6 . Existing, Proposed, and Final REI Notification Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

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 a rea during REI:

 Date of entry

 Location of early

- entry area

 Pesticides applied

 Dates and times REI begins

and ends

 Exception allowing early

entry and description of tasks permitted under the exception

 Whether contact with treated

surfaces is permitted

 Amount of time allowed in

area

 Required PPE

 Location of basic safety

information and decontamination supplies The employer must ensure the

w orker has read or been informed of labeling related to human hazards, precautions, first aid and user safety Oral notification to workers prior to entry into treated area during REI:

 Location of early

- entry area

 Pesticides applied

 Dates and times REI begins

and ends

 Exception allowing early

entry and description of tasks permitted under the exception

 Whether of contac t with

treated surfaces is permitted

 Amount of time allowed in

area

 Required PPE

 Location of basic safety

information and decontamination supplies The employer must ensure the

w orker has read or been informed of labeling related to human hazards, precautio ns, first aid and user safety

No requirements for record keeping Keep records for 2 years on:

 Notification (see above), except labeling hazard and precaution information

 Acknowledge ment of notification by printed name and signature of workers No requirements for record keeping23

As noted above, entry into treated areas during the REI was the second most common factor leading to pesticide incidents in a recent review of incident data (Calvert et al. , 2008)

. Information is lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred during employer

- directed entry. Farmworker advocacy organizations have expressed

concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early entry or understand the requirements of th e exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early

- entry exception. Under the final revisions , the early entry

notification requirements w ill be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with

treated surfaces.

Pesticide Safety Information Display

The basic pesticide safety information display is a visual reminder of the infor mation presented in pesticide safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Employers must display the information at a central location on the establishment. In the final regulation

, employers will also be required to provide contact information for nearby medical facilities and the state enforcement agency on 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.

The revisions to the WPS will also require that t he information be displayed where

deconta mination supplies are available for 11 or more workers and/or handlers and at permanent

decontamination locations

. With this additional location, the information would be available at

time s and in place s 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.

Table 2.2

- 7 . Existing, Proposed, and Final Basic Pesticide Safety Di splay Requirements.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Pesticide Safety Information Information on display includes

decontamination information

and self

- protective practices D econtamination information

and self

- protective practices

and:

 State enforcement agency

contact information

 Medical facility contact

information D econtamination information

and self

- protective practices

and:

 State enforcement agency

contact information Med ical facility contact information

Displayed at a central location Displayed at a central location and display with worker and

handler decontamination supplies Displayed at a central location and display wherever 11 or more workers/handlers are working and sanitation supplies are required , and at all permanent

decontamination locations24

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms

As in the existing regulation, the final regulation requires commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. The agricultural employer must provide the CPHE with informa tion about treated

areas under REIs on the establishment. The CPHE must notify the agricultural employer of application plans prior to making an application so that information can be communicated to

workers and handlers

. The revisions adjust the timing information is exchanged and revise s the

rule to reflect existing guidance

.



### 2.3 Protect ing Workers and Pesticide Handlers

In the final regulation, EPA revised requirements to improve protections for workers and

handlers from the exposure and potential a dverse effects of pesticides. The provision s are intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides . There are three areas: minimum age requirements; entry restrictions, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Summary tables compare the exist ing, proposed and final requirements. See the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on these requirements and rationale for EPA ’s decisions.



### 2.3.1 Minimum Age

The final regulations establish a minimum age requirement of 18 for handlers and early entry workers. EPA focused on two situations where workers and handlers will have the greatest potential for exposure: the handling of pesticides including mixing, loa ding, and applying; and entry into treated fields during the REI. Minimum a ge requirements protect adolescents who may be more susceptible to injury from exposure to pesticides in either a concentrated form or where residues may be at a level that could c ause unreasonable adverse effects without proper protection . Neither minimum age requirement applies to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.

Table 2.3

- 1. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Minimum Age Restrictions.
Existing Re quirement Proposed Requirement 1 Final Requirement 1 No age restriction on person performing early entry activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to be directed to perform early entry activities Employee must be 1 8 years of

age to be directed to perform early entry activities No age restriction on person performing handling activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to perform handler duties Employee must be 18 years of age to perform handler duties

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

As explained in more detail in Chapter s 1 and 4 , studies have suggest ed that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children and adolescents than for mature individuals because

devel oping systems are more sensitive (EPA, 2002 ; EPA 2008; Golub, 2000 )

. Thus, there can be substantial benefits to the health of adolescents by precluding them from engaging in tasks with the highest potential levels of exposure. 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 PPE25

properly and in appropriate situations. I n 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 150,000 workers under the age of 18 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2 7,0 00 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely

about 6

, 2 00 of these adolescent workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and another 200 or so may be employed as handlers by CPHEs and working extensively with pesticides.



### 2.3. 2 Entry Restrictions

EPA is finalizing two changes; one pertaining to entry into areas being treated with pesticides and one pertaining to entry into areas under a REI.

The existing regulation limits direct contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, limited to nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit exposure from drift in relatively confined spaces

. The final regulation provides an analogous requirement

to farms and forests by defining an “Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ)

. ” Unlike the entry restricted area of nurseries and greenhouses which is define d by the area being treated, the AEZ

is established around the application equipment during application . The size of the zone depends on the method of the application because some application methods, such as aerial applications, are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in

- furrow applications. This revision reinforces the prohibition against applying pesticides in a manner that results in contact to others by establishing a well

- defined area that employers must keep workers from entering. The AEZ is limited to property under control of the employer.

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Early entry into the treated area during the REI is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical for agricultural production. Most exceptions do not allow hand labor , require use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and may have other limitation s, such as and/or specify ing that contact with treated surfaces must be limited to feet, lower legs, hands and forearms. A person is

limited to one hour within the treated area under the short

- term exception. Limited contact and irrigation tasks exceptio ns are limited to eight hours within the treated area. Hand labor activities are allowed in the case of an agricultural emergency, but there is currently no limit on the time a worker may be in the treated area. T he final re visions establish a four

- hour time limit for any single workers to enter an area during an REI in the case of an agricultural emergency, if

the area was treated with a double

- notification product, i.e. , requiring both oral notification and posting warning signs because of a relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the duration of any exposure to such chemicals

.26



### 2.3.3 Personal Protective Equipment

Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of PPE to reduce

dermal

, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide labels may require the use of PPE

. The WPS establishes requirements designed to ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropriate time. This is one way that WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. The requirements in the final regulations are discussed pertaining to: respiratory protection, crop advisor exemption, closed systems, and contaminated PPE, followed by a comparison of the existing, proposed and final requirements in Table 2.3

- 3. See the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on these requirements and rationale for the Agency’s decisions.

Respiratory Protection

The existing WPS require s that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly , but does not specify how to determine proper fit . The final regulation establishes requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirato r wearer, and medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates certain OSHA requirements that apply to workers in other

ind ustries and reduces the possibility of exposures th a t occu r from poor fit. The respirator

trai ning provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify when filters need replacement.

EPA reviewed over 800 pesticide incident reports; see Chapter 4 for details of this review. About half were judged to pertain to oc cupational activities covered by the WPS. EPA identified about a dozen incidents associated with respirator use and eight that were clearly linked to poor respirator fit. Given the hazards associated with the pesticides that require respirators, improvin g the use of this protective equipment is likely to result in substantial benefits.

Closed Systems

Under the existing regulations, a use of closed mixing and loading system allows relaxation of the PPE requirements specified on the product label

. I ndustrial hygienists consider engineering controls, such as closed systems for pesticides to be the first and best line of defense against occupational health hazards (Plog, 1996). Engineering controls do not require human

intervention to minimize exposur e and the WPS is designed to encourage the use of closed systems in place of PPE if possible . However, t h e substitution of a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system effectively prevents exposure

. A closed system, under the existing

r ule, is defined as “a properly functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons.” This definition is vague and , as a result, many systems are in use that do not fully protect the handler. EPA is revis ing the definition to set a performance

based standard in line with available technologies ( Giles and Billing, 2013 ). EPA is requir ing written operating instructions and training of handlers in the use of the system , if a closed system is used in place of PPE. The revisions apply to any user of a closed system, including farms relying s olely on immediate family labor and are intended to ensure that those who choose to use a closed system have one that is appropriate.27

Crop Advisor Exemption

PPE are gener ally required when a person enters a field under a REI. However, t he WPS allows for certain exemptions, specifically for certified crop advisors (CCA) and employees working under the supervision of a CCA

, although these employees must be provided decontamination supplies and emergency assistance

. The final regulation requires that employees working under a crop advisor use a standard set of PPE or label

- required PPE while working in a field during an

REI. The benefit of this revision is to remove a potential externality and protect employees who may not be fully trained and may be unable to make appropriate ju dgments regarding personal

risk

.

Table 2.3

- 2

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Personal Protective Equipment

. Existing Requi rement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Handler employer confirms respirator fit Fit test, training and medical evaluation conforming to OSHA requirements

Keep records for 2 years Fit test, training and medical evaluation conforming to OSHA requirements

Keep records for 2 years PPE exception while using a closed system PPE exception only if using a closed system with specific design criteria and operating

standards PPE exception while using a closed system that meets a performance

- based sta ndard and basic operating instructions Crop advisor may choose PPE for employees working in a field during an REI Crop advisor employees must

use label

- required PPE while working in a field during an REI Crop advisor employees must

use a standard set of P PE or PPE required by label while working in a field during an REI



### 2.4 Mitigat ing the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

Certain regulations help mitigate the effects of accidental pesticide exposure by ensuring that decontamination supplies are available and specifying actions for prompt medical treatment in case of an emergency.



### 2.4. 1 Decontamination Suppl ies

The existing WPS regulations require that workers have access to “enough” 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 are engaged in tasks in which they may have contact with surfaces treated with the pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon pe r worker (EPA, 2006)

. The final regulations require that workers have access to one gallon, i.e. , codifying existing guidance. Further, EPA will require that early entry workers have access to three gallons, as measured at the beginning of the workday. More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities.28

Similarly, t he existing WPS regulations require that handlers have access to “enough” wate r, soap, and single

- use towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing

. EPA’s guidance defines “enough” water to be three gallons per handler (EPA, 2006). The existing regulations

also require that employers provide “enough” water for emergency ey e flushing and one pint of

water in a portable container for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear

. Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity. The final revisions codify the guidance for the qu antity of water. The final requirements also specify that for emergency eye flushing, a handler who is mixing or loading pesticides or is using a closed system under pressure must have a system capable of delivering 0.4 gallons of water per minute

for 15 m inutes, or 6 gallons of water able to flow gently for about 15 minutes . Handlers making application of products with label requirements for eye protection must be provided at least one pint of water in a portable container for immediate use in case of an exposure to the eye, as in the existing rule

. In addition to ensuring the availability of appropriate materials in case of an accident, t he benefit of these final revisions is to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement agencies.

Table 2.4

- 1

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Decontamination Supplies.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “ enough ” water per worker for routine washing and emergency

eye flushing Provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing Provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing Provide “sufficient” water per early

entry worker for thorough washing; provid e 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 Provide 3 gallons of water per early entry worker for thorough washing; provide 1 pint water for eye flushing as required Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “ enough ” decontamination water per handler 3 gallons per handler for routine hand washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency 3 gallons per handler for routine hand washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency All permanent mix/load sites require sufficient running water to flush eyes for 15

minutes at 1.5 L/min.

whenev er a product requiring handler eye protection is being used When mixing/loading product requiring handler eye protection, or using a pressurized closed system, have a system at the site capable of delivering at least

0 .4 gallons per minute for 15

minutes o r 6 gallons of water for about 15 minutes, and 1 pint of water in a portable

container29



### 2.4. 2 Emergency Assistance

In case of a worker or handler becoming ill from pesticide exposure, t he existing regulations require that both transportation to an emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medi cal personnel must be “prompt.” T he proposal established a specific time frame of 30 minutes for provision of transportation and pesticide

information ( label and SDS). However, many commenters described scenarios where the established timeframe would be very difficult to meet. EPA concluded that the existing requirement for prompt transportation and provision of information is adequate. The final regulations , therefor e, continue to require transportation to an emergency medical facility and provision of information by the employer promptly upon notice of an illness.

Table 2.4

- 2

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Emergency Response

Provisions.
Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement Emergency Response for Workers and Handlers “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 and handlers Provision of emergency transportation and of SDS or label or comparable

information to medical personnel or the injured

person within 30 minutes Provision of transportation, SDS and label (or the same

information listed in the existing requirement) promptly upon notice of a pesticide

- related illness

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

discus sion of the relative costs and benefits of the final regulation requirements.30



## Chapter 3. Cost Analysis

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of changes to the worker protection standards.

EPA estimates the incremental cost of the final rule to be between $ 41. 5 and $ 8 1.0 million per year, given a three percent discount rate , but is likely to be between $60.2 and $66.9 million per

year . The range of costs reflects different estimates of the number of agricultural establishments

and number of workers and handlers that might be affected by revisions to the WPS

. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 40.0 and $ 81.0 million per

year. Since costs are expected to be constant or nearly constant each year, th e discount rate only effects the estimated costs if some components of the rule, particularly the additional training materials, are not implemented at the same time as other components.

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 final requirements. We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is great diversity in pest pressure an d the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, therefore, made a number of assumptions based 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 assume d that farms are in full compliance with current regulations a nd will be in full compliance with the final 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 establishments; m any inspections are the result of specific complaints. As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful information on compliance rates.

A major driver of the estimated total cost is the number of agricultural establishments , worker s, and handlers that are covered by the WPS

. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2015), there were 2.1 million farms, including livestock operations, nurseries, and greenhouses, with 2.7 million employees in 2012 and these numbers have been relatively stable over the past decade. However, the WPS applies only to those farms using pesticides for crop production. The Census reports that about one million farms used pesticides in 2012, of which the Agency estimates about 872,000 produce some kind of crop, including nursery and greenhouse production. Further, the WPS generally applies only to farms that hire labor since farms relying on immediate family labors are exempt from many of the provisions. The Census reports that there are over 566, 000 farms hiring labor and EPA estimates that about 466,000 of those, employing 2.4 million people, produce crops. Of those, EPA estimates 354,000 farms employing 2.1 million people used pesticides in 2012. EPA assumes that these estimates are

representa tive of other years although, due to differences in pest pressure from year to year, an individual farm may not use pesticides every year. Finally, the WPS does not cover every employee; it covers ‘workers’ who engage in hand labor activities in crop prod uction and ‘handlers’ who mix, load, and/or apply pesticides for crop protection. Farms that hire workers are required by the WPS to:

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training;

 Provide hazard communication material and pesticide safety displays;31

 Provide notification of pesticide applications and REIs, either orally or by posting ;

 Provide safety information in cases of entry into areas under a REI;

 Provide decontamination supplies and emergency assistance

. Much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and many employees will not be engaged in hand labor. For example, farms engaged primarily in livestock production (NAICS 112) that also produce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like grains and oilseeds that do not require hand weeding, thinning , or harvesting

. These farms may employ a pesticide handler. Farms that hire handlers are requied by the WPS to:

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training;

 Provide hazard communication material and pesticide safety displays ;

 Provide appropriate PPE; and

 Provide decontamination supplies and emergency assistance

.

EPA’s primary estimate is that nearly 375,000 agricultural establishments employing nearly 2.0 million workers and/or handlers will be affected by the revisions to the WPS. In particular, EPA

ass umes that all establishments hiring workers and/or handlers will provide pesticide safety training at the beginning of the agricultural season before decisions are made regarding the use of pesticides. EPA estimates that 304,106 farms, employing 1.8 milli on workers and/or handlers, will ultimately use pesticides and be subject to the other WPS requirements. Additionally, EPA estimates there are another 568,000 farms that use pesticides but do not have employees performing hand labor and/or pesticide handl ing tasks or are eligible for the immediate family exemption. Some of these farms may be affected by revisions to the PPE requirements and exceptions. Finally, EPA estimates there are over 40,000 commercial pesticide application firms including self

- empl oyed commercial applicators that may be affected by the final revisions

. Given the estimated number of affected entities, EPA estimates the total annual incremental costs to be between $60.2 and $66.9 million, using a three percent discount rate. T he cos t for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of $750,000 or more, is estimated to be around $ 170 and $ 355 per year , depending on whether the farm employs handlers only or both handlers

and workers . The incremental cost to the average small WP S farms is estimated to be between $ 71 and $ 142 per year depending again on whether the farm employs handlers and/or workers

. For small farms, the cost represents less than 0.1 percent of average annual sales. The impact on farms that use pesticides, but rely solely on the owner and immediate family for labor, is limited to the respirator fit requirements and changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost less than $50 per year, on average, to approximately 130,000 farms. Commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are estimated to face an annual incremental cost between $ 530 and $ 565 , although self

- employed commercial applicators will face costs of only about $ 230 per year. Most of the estimated cost to CPHEs is due to the minimum age requirement and is a driven by highly conservative assumptions regarding the number or adolescent handlers and the amount of time they are employed. Forestry operations are also covered by WPS, but EPA lack s 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

, and thus, impacts are likely to be

minimal

.32

The estimated costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $ 29 to $ 32 per year per employee, not including self

- employed handlers (both commercial applicators and far m operators or immediate family members) who benefit from some of the revisions.

The national incremental costs presented in this chapter are likely biased upwards for several reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impa ct 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 pe st 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 most workers of all applications at

the time t he 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 so at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated assuming that all requirements are applicable to nearly all employees of affected farms. In reality, WPS requirements cover only farmworkers who engage in hand labor activities associated with crop production and handlers who mix, load, and apply pesticides

. EPA assumes that nearly two

million employees reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture are covered, while USDA

estimates there are just over one million f armworkers , including 288,000 agricultural service workers employed through labor contractors (ERS, 2014)

. The USDA estimate does not include

handlers. These assumptions bias the per

- farm upwards, which are then multiplied by the

number of affected farms , which is also likely to be overestimated.

As a lower bound, EPA assumes that farms that primarily produce field crops, such as grains, oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, are also largely mechanized , like the prim arily livestock farms,

and will not employ w orker s who enga ge in hand labor activities, although they may employ

handlers. As a result, EPA estimates that there are about 182,000 farms employing approximately 248,000 handlers and about 90,000 farms producing cotton, tobacco, vegetables,

and tree cr ops
, along with nurseries and greenhouses , employing over 1.2 million workers

, some of whom would also be pesticide handlers

. Given these figures

, along with the number of

affected farms relying on owner and immediate family labor and CPHEs, the total incremental

cost of the WPS revisions is estimated to be between $ 4 2.4 and $ 4 7.0 million per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requir ements at the farm level and likely includes

many employees of crop farms that will not be using hand labor in production.

If we estimate costs based on the 1,063 ,000 workers estimated by USDA rather than all 1,246,000 employees counted in the Census for farms producing cotton, tobacco, vegetables, and tree crops along with nurseries and greenhouses , t otal incremental costs are estimated to be

between $ 4 1.5 and $ 4 5.8 million annually. It is not an unreasonable estimate. It maintains the

conservative assu mptions about the individual requirements, especially since it includes an estimated 288,000 workers employed through labor contractors. The farm may be re s ponsible for providing pesticide safety training for these workers, but most notification requireme nts would not be applicable for workers who are on farm for only a few days

.33

If all 466,000 crop

- producing farms estimated to hire labor, and all 2.4 million employees, are covered by the WPS because they engage in hand labor or handle pesticides, EPA est imates the total incremental cost of the rule to be $7 2.6 to $ 81.0 million per year.

It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a smaller subset of farms subject to all WPS provisions , the estimated per

- farm impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ more workers per farm than do livestock operations. I n the lower bound, large ‘handler only’ farms are e stimated to incur impacts of $ 16 5 to $ 17 5 per year, on average, while the l arge farms employ ing hand labor are estimated to bear additional cost of $ 5 98 to $ 725 per year, on average, given the higher average number of workers . The estimated

incremental cost to small farms employing hand labor is $ 1 66 to $ 1 94 per year.

This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 .1 provides an overview of the estimation.

Section 3.2 explains the methodology and data used to estimate the cost of the revisions. Section

3.3 presents the estimation of costs where Section 3.3 .1 addresses the training component

. Section 3.3 .2 presents the costs of the final hazard communication requirements

, Section 3.3.3

covers the notification components, Section 3.3.4 the cost of the minimum age, Section 3.3.5 entry restrictions, Section 3.3.6 PPE requirements, and Section 3.3. 7 addresses the requirements for decontamination supplies . Section 3.3. 8 provides additional details about the total estimated

cost of the rule. Section 3.4 then discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section

3. 5 presents the analysis of s mall business impacts. Section 3.6 discusses the resource implications of the rule to the states, which have enforcement duties under FIFRA.



### 3.1 Overview

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). The WPS covers employees who p erform hand labor activities associated with crop production on fields recently treated with pesticides and employees who handle pesticides, that is, who perform activities such as mixing, loading and applying pesticides. For simplicity, we use the term “ WPS farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that have employees potentially covered by the WPS . Forestry operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use patterns in forestry operations will not t ypically trigger most WPS provisions such as training and notification. Generally speaking, the revisions w ill require owners/operators of these establishments to devote

additional resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure , beyond those required under the existing rule . EPA estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the

value of the time and materials expended to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not

direct out

- of

- pocket expenses.

In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the

manage ment of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature 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 divided into two groups: w orkers and handlers.34

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 a s harvesting, weeding, thinning, and trimming. 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 may be workers as well, as th ey will often engage in production activities that do not entail handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule depends on

the nature of the activ ity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time.



### 3.2. Methodology and Data

To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the final regulatory enhancements to the WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum standards, but states, as well as other jurisdi ctions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories,

could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory

baseline takes into account current state requirements rather than the federal requirements only

. To re duce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine regions of the

country.



### 3. 2 .1 General Methodology

In general, requirements may impose costs at the level of the employer or establishment and /or at the level of the employee. That i s, 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

condu cted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate those cost s 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:

cost r

, i

, a B

t = ∑

w a ∙ H
r

, i

, a
, j B

t ∙ freq t (

j | i )

j + ∑

c m ∙ M
r

, i

, a
, m B

t ∙ freq t ( m | i )

m

where cost r,i, a

B
t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement s 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 re quirement s ; w a is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; freq t ( j | i ) is the annual frequency 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 freq t ( m | i ) is the annual frequency material m is required in time t given the region.

Revisions to the requirements of the WPS are assessed under seven elements. Three elements deal with information provided by the employer : training, hazard communication, and notification. Three elements focus directly on protecting workers: minimum age, protective35

equipment, and restrictions on entry into a treated area. The last element, decontamination supplies and emergency assistan ce
, address es mitigating the effects of exposure in case of an

incident . However, revisions to the emergency assistance requirements are not expected to impose additional costs and this element is not included in the cost analysis.

An actor may be an est ablishment, 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 receiving information from the 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 actor will undertake the activity in some year. For example, training is currently required every five years ; thus , any given employee might have ab out a 2 0 perc ent chance of taking a training, although various factors make training more likely.

Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per actor of the revised regulatory requirement:

cost r

, a F

t = ∑

w a ∙ H
r

, a
, j F

t ∙ freq t (

j )

j + ∑

c m ∙ M
r

, a
, m F

t ∙ freq t ( m )

m

where variables are defined as above, with F denoting the requirement under the final rule . For simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or region. Current s tate 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 generally

restrict H

r,i,, a ,j B ≤ H

r, a ,j F and M

r,i,, a ,m B ≤ M

r, a ,m F ; otherwise, the incremental cost would err oneously imply a cost savings.

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and new requirements by multiplying per

actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across actors.

RC
r

, i B

t = ∑ cost r

, i

, a B

t × N
a
, i t

a

RC
r

, i F

t = ∑ cost r

, a F

t × N
a
, i t

a

where RC r,i

X denotes the cost of requirement r in region i for the baseline , B, and the new requirement , F; 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 3.2 .3 ).36

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

NC
r X

t = ∑ RC

r

, i X

t
i

Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream. Present value is a measure of all future costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid or received immediately. Translating costs to present value allows different streams to be comp ared or aggregated. EPA calculates the present value (PV) of regional costs over a ten

- year time horizon.

PV ( RC

r

, i X )

= ∑ RC

r

, i X

t ( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variab les are as previously defined.

Th is step and the ch oic e of time horizon are not particularly important as most of the per

- actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur annually. However, some training requirements will be phased in over time to allow for the development and dissemination of new mater ial. 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). Similarly, the ten

- year time horizon was cho sen mainly to be consistent OMB’s preferred time frame for analyzing the costs of regulation across federal agencies.

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 requirement in each region by subtracting the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement.

PV ( RIC

r

, i )

= PV ( RC

r

, i F )

− PV ( RC

r

, i B )

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

. Sum across protective categories to obtain the PV incremental cost for the final rule.

PV ( RIC i ) = ∑ PV ( RIC R

, i )

R

Ag ain, this is done for national level cost , NIC, by summing across regions

.

Step 7

. C alculate the ann ualized incremental cost of the rule . The annualized figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present va lue as a variable37

cost stream. For example, the annualized incremental cost of the revisions at the national level

, AIC, is calculated as

AIC = PV ( NIC ) × ρ ∙ ( 1 + ρ ) 10

( 1 + ρ ) 10

− 1

where all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annual ized incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per establishment. A more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presented in Section 3. 5.

A few of the potential requirements require some devi ation from this general methodology. This

is explained in the following sections as we present the results.



### 3. 2

. 2 Regional Groupings

Table 3. 2

- 1 shows the representative 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 Sou th 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. T he 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 geogr aphical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted by a var iety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 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 pro duction and the state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and other states’ requirements.38

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 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 Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming

Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon

Several non

- state jurisdictions are covered by the WPS , including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several Pacific islands . These jurisdictions are not included in this analysis because

robust data on farms , workers, and pesticide use are not readily available. This implies some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions have small 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 c hanges 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,

th ere is no reason to think that the variation in the national

- level estimates of cost are greater than the variation in regional

- level estimates.



### 3. 2

. 3 General Data

Th is section discusses the data that are commonly used throughout the analysis. Data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the requirement.

For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to meet current and potential requirements and the probability or fr equency with which they will be needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each requirement. The other component of the per

- actor costs are the prices associated with time and material. The39

wage rates for the various ac tors are used frequently in the analysis and are discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national level (Step 3) requires data on the number of actors in each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the employees t o which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time (Step 4), we need to take into account changes in the agricultural sector. Most of the time and materials needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur o n an annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, particularly the changes in the number of

farms and workers . In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and employees, includ ing both numbers and wages, and changes in each over

time.

Establishments , Farms

The WPS applies to those farms that use pesticides in the commercial production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses and employ labor, specif ically workers engaged in hand labor activities or handlers working directly with pesticides . Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not covered by the

WPS. According to the 20 12 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 20 14 ), there are over 2. 1 million ranches, farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. Over 1.5 million grow crops, including nursery and greenhouse production. Almost one million of them report ed using pesticides and about 566,000 hired labor at some time during the year. However, publicly available data from the 2012 Census do not report the subset of farms that grow crops, use pesticides, and hire labor. Moreover, publicly available data by economic category do not correspond to that used by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define small businesses.

Previously , the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture at EPA’s request to identify the number of the operations that meet all the criteria for the WPS to apply (NASS, 2008)

. In 2007, there were 2.2 million farms of which 482,000 hired labor. Of those, 395,000 produced crops of which 304,000 used pesticides. In the analysis of the proposed WPS revisions, EPA identified all 395,000 farms , nurseries, and greenhouses that hired labor and produced crops as those subject to WPS provisions, especially the requirements that workers receive pesticide saf

ety training. Most other provisions, such as notifications of pesticide applications, apply only to the 304,000 WPS farms that used pesticides. We assumed that any of the WPS farms might use pesticides at some time in the future, estimating that the prob ability of using pesticides in any year as the proportion of WPS farms using pesticides in 2007 to the total

number of WPS farms. These data were available across farms of different production types and economic categories, in particular, by categories th at follow the distinction between small and large entities as defined by the SBA. This is explained more fully in Section 3.5, the analysis of small business impacts.

In order to estimate the number of WPS farms across economic categories and production types for this analysis of the final WPS rule, we rely on publicly available data from the 2012 Census and the observed proportions of farms in 2007. The methodology is describe d in Appendix A.

EPA estimates that there are 46 5

, 766 crop

- producing farms th at hire labor, of which 354, 220 use pesticides. This is likely to be a substantial overestimate, however, because many farms40

included in this figure will not be employing labor in tasks covered by the WPS , that is pesticide

handlers or fieldworkers who en gage in hand labor activities. They will produce field and forage crops that are highly mechanized. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. EPA estimates that 8 9 ,9 0 9 far ms fall into these categories, based on the primary source of revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production, however, so many other farms might produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the productio n of oilseeds and/or grains. Therefore, EPA ’s primary estimate includes all farms where the primary activity is a type of crop production, a total of 312,56 8 . Another 62,226 farms where the primary activity is a type of livestock production are estimated to employ pesticide handlers, but not fieldworkers. This provides a total of 374,79 4 farms covered by the provisions of the WPS, or “WPS farms.”

Table 3. 2

- 2 presents the number of farms hiring labor, by state, and their distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis , obtained from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014)

. The number of WPS farms and those using pesticides are assumed to be distributed across regions in the same proportion as all farms that hire labor.

Table 3. 2

- 2

. WPS Farms , by region 1

.

Region Farms Hiring

Labor Crop

Producing Farms Hiring

Labor WPS Farms

with

Fieldworkers WPS Farms

with Handlers Only

United States 566,469 466,295 312,565 62,226

South 86,646 71,343 47,822 9,521

California 33,955 27,978 18,754 3,734

Southwest 19,339 15,854 10,627 2,116 Subtropical 15,268 12,590 8,439 1,680

Midwest 122,128 100,720 67,514 13,441

Northeast 60,016 49,427 33,132 6,596 Ohio Valley 125,897 103,517 69,389 13,814

Texas/Mountain

West 72,585 59,686 40,008 7,965

Northwest 30,635 25,180 16,879 3,360

Source: NASS, 20 14; EPA estimation (see Appendix A )

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

.

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 final revisions because there is an exemption from many WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some exemptions to pesticide label requirement s, e.g. , the ability to substitute a closed delivery system for PPE . Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect all farms applying pesticides. EPA estimates that about 5 6 8 ,000 crop

- producing farms that use pesticides but do not hire workers or handlers; rather, immediate family members supply labor

for these activities

.41

Table 3. 2

- 3 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, small er farms are less likely to employ a pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater than $750,000, and the s mall farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 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

- sm all 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 (CFR, 2013) . 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 million. These distinctions correlate to the number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also correlate to pesticide use. Around 9 0 percent of large and large

- small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small

- small farms did. Seventy

- four percent of medium

- small farms used pesticides.

Table 3. 2

- 3 . Number of WPS Establishments, by size category , 2012

. Region WPS

Farms Small

Small 1 Medium

Small 2 Large

Small 3 Large 4

South 5 7, 343 1 0,850 12,652 21, 688 12,153

California 22,488 4,255 4,961 8,505 4,766

Southwest 12,746 2,411 2,811 4,820 2,701 Subtropical 10,119 1,915 2,233 3,827 2,145

Midwest 80,956 15,318 17,861 30,619 17,158

Northeast 39,728 7,517 8,765 15,026 8,420 Ohio Valley 83,204 15,744 18, 357 31,469 17,634

Texas/Mountain West 47,974 9,077 10,584 18,144 10,168

Northwest 20,239 3,830 4,465 7,655 4,289

U.S. 374,794 70,917 82,690 141,753 79,434

Source: EPA estimation (see Appendix A )

. Establishments distributed across regions according to

distribution of all farms that hire labor

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

. 2 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annu al 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

. Includes 39,469 farms employing handlers, but not fieldworkers.

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

million

. Includes 22,757 farms employing handlers, but not fieldworkers.

Establishments , Commercial Pesticide Handlers

In order to determine the number of CPHEs, EPA obtain ed a report from Hoover ’s of Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 201 4 ) database to identif y firms under the North American Industrial42

Classification System ( NAI C S ) code 115112, for soil preparation, planting, and cultivating. This search resulted in 5,079 firms. With in this group, we identified firms listed under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions for weed control services (before and after planting)

, crop dusting services, soil chemical treatment services, crop spraying services, crop

thin ning services (chemical), and crop disease control services . Within these categories, there were 1, 936 firms. We assume that these firms are distributed across states and regions in the same proportions as farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2014).

EPA als o considered the number of commercial applicators. According to data submitted to EPA under the applicator certification program, between 2008 and 2013, an average of 89,564 commercial applicators have been certified or maintained certification in agricul tur e, plant protection (CPARD, 2014 ). Given data on employment of handlers (detailed below) , we estimate 1,936 establishments account for 1 6,256 commercial applicators leaving 73,338 . At the extreme, all these commercial applicator s could be self

- employe d. 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, i ncluding the owner of the establishment. As shown in

Table 3. 2

- 4 , this implies that there are 40,336 small CPHEs in addition to those identified by

Dun & Bradstreet . These firms are distributed across the regions based on the number of

commercial applicators cert ified in each state as shown in Table 3. 2

- 4 (CPARD, 2014 ).

Table 3. 2

- 4 . Estimated number of CPHEs, by region. Region CPHE (NAICS 115112) CPHE (commercial applicator)

South 281 2,240

California 87 2,508

Southwest 45 1,069 Subtropical 50 506

Midwest 470 17,021

Northeast 184 2,011 Ohio Valley 488 5,720

Texas/Mountain West 238 2,943

Northwest 93 6,317

U.S. 1,936 40,336

Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (201 4 ); CPARD (2014 ).

Establishments , Wage Rates

The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 20 14 b ), managerial wages 1 for farm establishments are $ 22.86 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports on wages and other compensation suggest that benefits comprise an additional 4 6 percent of wages across the civilian labor force (BLS, 2014 b ).

1 Farming, fishing, and forestry workers, occupational code 45

- 1011.43

EPA , therefore, calculates a loaded wage rate of $ 33 .44 per hour as the full value of time. For managers in a commercial pesticide handling establishments, BLS (2014 b ) reports the average unloaded wage rate of $2 2.32 per hour 2 . Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loaded wage r ate for this category is $ 32.65 per hour.

Employees

, W

orkers

Table 3. 2

- 5 presents the estimated number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops and the share of workers in each region , based on the number of employees reported

in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014)

. The estimation procedure follows that for the number of farms and is explained in detail in Appendix A. I ncluding all crop

- producing farms that hire labor in the category of farms covered by the WPS would impl y over 2. 4 million employees

. This is likely to be a significant overestimation for a number of reasons. First, the

Census is conducted at the establishment level. If a person is employed on multiple establishments over the course of the year, he or she will be counted by each establishment. Second, t he WPS only covers workers engaged in hand labor activities while the number of employees reported in the Census covers all activities

, including activities associated with mechanized production as well as activities not directly related to production. USDA estimates less than 1.1 million field workers, including those working through labor contractors ( ERS, 2014) . EPA estimates that about 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and vegetable

farms and nurseries and greenhouses, based on Census data, which may be a more reasonable approximation of the number of workers covered by the WPS

. For the primary estimate of costs, EPA includes all employees of farms that are primarily producing crops, which includes over 1.9 million people. While about 7 6 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 tabulat ion by NASS from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008). 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. 2

- 5

. W orkers on Crop Farms.

Region Farm Labor Labor, Crop

Producing Farms Labor
, Farms with

Fieldworkers

United States 2,736,417 2,407,056 1,910,055

South 324,118 276,081 225,386

California 465,422 424,096 324,709

Southwest 89,245 77,176 63,032 Subtropical 119,684 106,441 84,042

Midwest 366,584 324,157 255,947

Northeast 324,627 284,554 227,297 Ohio Valley 422,620 363,514 294,148

Texas/Mountain West 218,974 183,815 152,804

Northwest 405,143 367,222 282,688

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008)

2 First

- line supervisors of building and grounds cleaning and maintenance workers, occupational code 37

- 1010.44

Employees , Pesticide Handlers

The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms is un known. EPA assumes that, on average, large WPS farms (annual revenue greater than $750,000) employ two individuals who handle pesticides and large

- small WPS farms (annual revenue between $100,00 0 and $750,000) employ one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smalle st categories of WPS farms, EPA assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. Thus, EPA estimates that there are a total of 300,621 pesticide handlers working on crop

- producing farms. The distribution of

handlers across regions follows from the distribution of farms, as in Table 3. 2

- 2 , not of workers

as in Table 3.3

- 5 . Pesticide handlers may 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 handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform other production

- related tasks , although not necessarily

hand labor activities

. For this analysis, EPA estimates that 217,656 handlers a lso engage in worker activities and are also included in the number of workers presented in Table 3.2

- 5.

Data from the May 20 13 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the to tal number of handlers employed by commercial pesticide h andling establishments (BLS, 201 4 a ). The number of handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishment s (1 4

, 32 0 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 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Re gional numbers are estimated using the proportion of all farms using pesticides , including farms that do not hire

labor

.

In addition to handlers identified in the BLS data, EPA has information on the number of commercial applicators certified in crop prot ection, by state (CPARD, 2014). These handlers are

assumed to be self

- employed or part of a small firm not listed in proprietary databases.

Table 3. 2

- 6 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, the number of handlers employed at CPHEs, and other commercial applicators . All WPS farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications.45

Table 3.2

- 6 . WPS Agricultural Wor kers and Handlers and CPHE handlers.

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1 Handlers

CPHEs 2 Handlers

CPHEs, certified applicators

South 45,995 2,076 4,072

California 18 ,037 644 4,559

Southwest 10,221 329 1,944 Subtropical 8,117 372 920

Midwest 64,934 3,480 30,948

Northeast 31,866 1,360 3,658 Ohio Valley 66,738 3,609 10,400

Texas/Mountain West 38,479 1,761 5,351

Northwest 16,234 687 11,486

U.S. 300,621 14,320 73,338

Source: EPA estimates based on NASS (2008b, 2014); BLS, 201 4 a ; CPARD (2014)

. 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 establishmen t, not including the employer.

Includes 217,656 handlers on farms that employ fieldworkers, which are in cluded among workers in

Table 3.2

- 5

. 2 Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all farms that use pesticides

.

Employees , Wages

The average wage rate for farm workers and laborers in crops, nurseries, and greenhouses reported in the May 2 013 occupational employment statistics is $ 10.01 per hour (BLS, 201 4 b )

. Non

- wage benefits may be quite limited for this sector of the workforce ; a recent report ( DoL,

2011

- 2012 ) found that only 21 percent of farmworkers had access to employer

- provided hea lth insurance, for example. However , without more specific data, EPA assumes that benefits are similar to the rest of the civilian population at about 46 percent of wages. The loaded wage rate

for workers is therefore estimated to be $1 4.64 per hour.

Ha ndlers represent a more skilled set of workers, which we represent by using the wage rate for agricultural equipment operators, at $1 3.70 per hour (BLS, 201 4 b ). The loaded wage rate for

WPS handlers, therefore, is $ 20.04 per hour. Wages for commercial ha ndlers is reported to be $1 5.90 per hour, which impl ies a loaded wage rate of $23.26

.

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:

PV ( RC

r X )

= ∑ ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N a t a ( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 146

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

In general, the per

- actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However,

the number of actors could chang e as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized,

and if growers increasingly rely on commercial pest con trol services. Data, however, do not support the hypothesis of large c hanges . The number of farms has remained steady and an analysis of data by USDA (ERS, 2014) indicates that the number of farm workers has been largely unchanged since 2007, at least. After a period where the number of commercial entities increased in the early 2000’s, there appears to have been a recent decline. Such fluctuations do not suggest a long

- term trend, however. Therefore, EPA assumes the number of actors will

rem a in mo re o r less constant in the future

.

As a result, we can simplify the equation for PV into components for each actor.

PV ( RC

r X )

= cost r

, a X

∙ N a 0 ∙ ∑ 1
( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1

That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that

reflects the cumulative effect of discount rate, which can then be summed across actors. This value is approximately 8.79 for a three percent discount rate and 7.52 for a seven percent

discount rate

.

This completes the discussion of the genera l 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, fol lowed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response and decontamination supplies.



### 3.3 Cost of Final Requirements

This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We estimate cost under

different com ponents in order to account for interactions between specific requirements. For example, under pesticide safety training, EPA will require employers to cover additional material, which will result in longer training sessions, and will require annual train ing, which will result in more frequent sessions. There are essentially no cost interactions between components, so estimated incremental costs of each component can be summed to estimate the

total incremental cost of the final revisions. Section 3.3.1 c overs the P esticide S afety T raining

component in some detail . The results of other components are presented in more summary

fashion in Section 3.3.2, Hazard Communication; Section 3.3.3

, Notification ; Section 3.3.4, Minimum Age; Section 3.3.5, Entry Restrictions; Section 3.3.6, Personal Protective Equipment;

and Section 3.3.7, Decontamination Supplies . Details of the estimation for these components can be found in Appendix B. Section 3.3.9 then sums the components and presents the total cost

of the final rule.47



### 3.3. 1 Pesticide Safety Training

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training , potentially hiring trainers, and incur ring the opportunity cost of labor duri ng the time workers and /or handlers are receiving the training. C PHEs incur costs for handler training.

We assume that all farms hiring farmworkers and/or handlers 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 emplo yees would not be allowed to work in and around treated areas until they receive training, which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other

farm ac tivities, WPS farms may find it more cost

- effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, EPA ’s estimates of the cost of training requirements are likely biased upward, although any bias in the incremental cost is uncertain.

C urrently, 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. There is a ‘grace period’ of five days, however, if full training cannot be provi ded before the first entry into this area; employers must still provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information. Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. The training covers specified topics including how pesticide exposure can occur, basic hazards and symptoms, washing and other forms of decontamination and first aid, and the protections workers can expect under the WPS. Trainings can be conducted by people with certain credentials as well as certified

a pplicators and co

- workers who have received WPS handler training. The WPS does not currently require that trainers provide workers with a record of their training , but EPA and several states have run a voluntary program to issue training verification card s to workers. The goal of the program is to provide workers with a means of showing future employers that they have met the training requirement.

The specific changes to the worker training requirements consist of (1) the e limination of the grace period before training ; (2) a nnual worker training ; (3), e xpanded worker training content to cover additional topics, most notably emphasizing the potential for pesticide residues to be transported home on clothing , shoes and other items ; (4) trainers must have certain credentials or be a certified applicator, but not someone who has only received WPS handler training; and (5) a

record

- keeping requirement, a copy of which must be provided to a worker upon request, which

can then be used to show other employers that he or she has met the training requirements.

Handler safety training is similar in many respects. Currently, t raining must be provided before an employee can mix, load, or apply pesticides and must be provided at least every five ye ars. The training covers the same topics as worker safety training as well as topics such as reading and understanding a pesticide label and use of PPE. As with worker safety training, records are not required but there has been a voluntary program to is sue training verification cards. Changes to the handler safety training requirements consist of (1) annual training; (2) e xpanded training48

content to cover additional topics, most notably emphasizing the potential for pesticide residues to be transported home on clothing; and (3) a record

- keeping requirement, a copy of which must be provided to a worker upon request, which can then be used to show other employers that he or she has met the training requirements.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the

workers and handlers , who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although we

assume the WPS farm incurs the full training costs and implicitly pays the worker /handler to take the training at the same wage he or she earns doing field work. However, some workers, for example, workers who are hired to harvest fruits and vegetables, are often paid by the quantity harvested; although time spent in training i s compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, these workers may bear some of the opportunity cost of training.

Following the methodology described in Section 3.2.1, the expected opportunity cost per worker is simply the wage rate multiplied by duratio n of the training and multiplied by the probability that a worker takes the training

. There are no differences across states or regions. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is

cost r

, a B

t = ∑

w j ∙ H
r

, aj B

t ∙ Prob t (

j )

j

As described in Section 3.2. 3, the average worker wage rate is $1 4.64 per hour including

benefits . Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes . In the baseline, EPA estimates that

49 .0 percent of workers are 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 underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate

. A sensitivity analysis conducted for the proposed rule indicates that the incremental cost is not sensitive to this parameter

.

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 employe rs because the voluntary training verification cards provided in some 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

- yea r period because they don’t remember when they last took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. In the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the

full train ing for one 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 at49

16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of tr aining. Note that some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 2001

- 2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional costs associated with the worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of

the final rule

.

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 quarterly Farm Labor Reports from January 2012 to April 2014, EPA estimates that 24 percent of the agricultural wo rkforce, including both new and returning workers, are part

- time employees who work less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five percent of these p art

- time employees, or about 1.2 percent of the workforce, do not receive training because they are employed fo r less than six days. Thus, 98. 8 percent of the first time and returning workers in need of training will take the full training, or

49 .0 percent of the total workforce.

Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1. 2 perc ent. However, this suggests that up to 2 3 ,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

- 1 presents the per

- worker cost of training under current requirements , including the

per

- worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates 1. 2 percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated 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 approx imately 5. 2 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator , whose t ime is valued at $ 33.44 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2. In total, the expected cost per worker is estimated to be $3.71 per year. The California baseline is estima ted to be $5.51 per year, since the state requires the safety training to cover mat erial similar to what will be required with these revisions and the training is likely to last an additional 15 minutes.50

Table 3.3

- 1 . Per

- Worker Baseline Costs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $1 4.64 /hr 0.5 hour 0.49 0 $ 3.59 Abbreviated Training

Session $1 4.64 /hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated

Session $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.0 9

Expected Cost ( cost r, a B ) $ 3.71

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.a

- 1, for assumptions and data sources.

The expected opportunity cost for a handler is estimated in a similar manner. The wages for handlers are $ 20.04 /hour for on

- farm employees and $2 3.26 /hour for commercial handlers. Handler safety training covers more material than worker safety and is expected to take about 45 minutes. We assume the new hire rate for workers is reflective of handler turnover as well, indicating that 16 percent of handlers will be newly trained each year. Since training must occur every five years thereafter, we assume that 20 percent of the remaining 84 percent of handlers, or 16.8 percent of all handlers, are trained each year as well. Thus, 32.8 percent of handlers are trained each year at an expected cost per handler of $4. 93 per year on

- farm and $5.7 2 per year in

CPHEs.

Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do not include material costs as there are none spec ifically required under the requirements, although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost for worker training is

cost r

, a B

t = ∑

w j ∙ H
r

, aj B

t ∙ freq t (

j | a )

j

where j , in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training and the frequency or probability of holding a training will vary across different farms . 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

- 1 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of handlers and certified applicators, paid $ 4 7.18 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, a lso paid $ 4 7.18 per hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $ 33.44 per hour

, lead 75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $ 20.04 per hour and assumed to lead one percent of trainings. Wage rates are loaded as explained in Section 3.3.2 . The wage for handler trainers is

that for occupational health and safety specialists, 2 9

- 9010 (BLS, 201 4b ). The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with trainers, extension agen ts, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a training.

Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3. 2

- 3 and 3. 2

- 5 ), there are, on

average
, 17. 9 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and51

3. 5 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 woul d need to be trained every year. This number could easily be accommodated with a single session. However, the average worker per farm masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, large WPS farms that primar ily 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. EPA assumes that s mall farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to hold 0.7

traini ng sessions each year on average and small farms with more than ten workers hold an average of 2.2 training session per year ; EPA estimates that the re are 17,598 small WPS farms

with more than ten workers out of 25 5

, 8 9 1 small WPS farms hiring farmworkers

, im plying a weighted average of 0.81 training sessions per year. EPA assumes that 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

. We estimate that there are 40,224 large WPS farms with fewer than ten

workers and 1 6

, 4 5 4 large farms with more than ten work ers for a weighted average of 1 .95 training sessions per year.

Table 3.3

- 2 presents the expected baseline cost for worker pesticide safety training for large WPS farms, given the hourly cost for a trainer, the time for a session, and the probability of a training being led by a particular type of trainer. The probability is simply the overall probability of using a type of trainer multiplied by the average num ber of sessions per year. For large WPS farms, averaging 1 .95 training sessions per year, the average annual cost for worker pesticide safety training is $3 5

. 6 0. For a small WPS farm, holding 0.81 training sessions per year on average, th e cost is estima ted to be $1 4.75 per year.

Table 3.3

- 2 . Baseline Costs for Worker Pesticide Safety Training , Large WPS Farm

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7.1 8 /hr 0.5 hour 0.272 $ 6. 42 Training by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.5 hour 0.195 $ 4.69

Training by certified applicator $33.44 /hr 0.5 hour 1.459 $24.39

Training by handler $20.04 /hr 0.5 hour 0.019 $ 0.19
Expected Cost ( cost r,i, a B ) $35.60

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.a

- 5, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The cost for handler training is estimated in a similar manner. Trainings may be conducted by

trainers of certified applicators , tho se completing a sanctioned train

- the

- trainer program, or a certified applicator. As with worker safety training, trainers of certified applicators and those completing a train

- the

- trainers program are assumed are assumed to conduct 14 percent and ten

perc ent of trainings, respectively. Certified applicators conduct the remaining 76 percent of

sessions.52

The frequency that a farm will need to conduct a handler safety training depends on the number of handlers in its employ. EPA assumes that large WPS farm s employ, on average, two handlers. If there is a 32.8 percent chance a handler needing to receive the safety training, there is a 65.6 percent chance of a large WPS farm providing a training. Farms may share resources or coordinate handler training so w e assume that there are four training sessions for every five farms with a handler to be trained for a total probability of 52.5 percent annually. EPA assumes that a large

- small farm (annual revenues between $100,000 and $750,000) employs one handler,

for a 32.8 percent chance that the handler needs training. EPA further assumes that there are three trainings for every 4 farms, as some farms are able to share resources, implying an annual probability of holding a handler training session of 24.6 percent. Given 14,320 commercial handlers and 1,936 CPHEs, each firm employs, on average, over seven handlers. EPA assumes that CPHEs hold a training session every year, on average.

Table 3.3

- 3 presents the estimated baseline cost for a large WPS farm for handle r pesticide safety training. Given the time and the annual frequency of training, combined with the cost and probability of each type of trainer, the expected cost is $ 14.46 per year. The expected cost for a large

- small WPS farm is $ 6.7 8 per year, given a lower frequency of holding a training session. For CPHEs, the cost is estimated to be $2 7.11 per year, reflecting the highest frequency of training and a higher opportunity cost for a training conducted by a certified commercial applica tor. California currently requires annual training for pesticide handlers and the training covers the additional material EPA will now require. Thus, for handler training in California, the

baseline cost will be the same as the cost estimated under the r ule.

Table 3.3

- 3 . Baseline Costs for Handler Pesticide Safety Training , Large WPS Farm

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.073 $ 2.60 Training by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.052 $ 1.86

Training by certified applicator $33.44 /hr 0.75 hour 0.399 $10.00

Expected Cost ( cost r,i, a B ) $14.46

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.a

- 6, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Finally, we consider the cost of the training verification cards. EPA produces the cards and distributes them to participating states at cost. In 2010, the last time the cards were printed, EPA produced 400,000 cards at a cost of $23,900 or about $0.06 per card. Trainers must fill out and distribute the cards; tests by EPA staff indicate it takes about 2 minutes per card to enter the name, date of training, and other pertinent information. Trainers belong to different categori es as explained above. The probability a trainer from a given category provides a trainee the verification card is the probability that a worker or handler receives training times the probability that the training is led by a trainer in that category. Th e verification cards a re estimated to cost $0.63 per worker per year, $0. 42 per farm handler per year, and $0.4 1 per commercial handler

per year.53

Table 3.3

- 4 . Per

- Worker Baseline Costs , Verification Cards

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quan tity

H r,i,j annual

frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Verification Card $0.06/card 1 card 0.49 0 $ 0.03

Distribution by handler

trainer $ 4 7. 18 /hr 0.033 hour 0.069 $ 0. 1 1

Distribution by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.033 hour 0.049 $ 0.0 8

Distribution by certified applicator $33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.368 $ 0 .41

Distribution by handler $20.04 /hr 0.033 hour 0.005 $ 0.00
Expected Cost ( cost r, a B ) $ 0.63

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.a

- 2, for assumptions and data sources.

Baseline costs for the verification cards are adjusted based on state participation in the voluntary program. Currently, very few states in the Midwest, Ohio Valley, and Texas/Mountain West regions have requested cards and therefore EPA treats the probabi lity of the action as zero, resulting in zero baseline costs. About half the states in the Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest states participate and therefore EPA estimates the annual frequencies to be half those estimated above, resulting in expected baseline costs of $0. 31 per worker per year and $0. 2 1 per handler per year for both the farm and commercial handler.

For each actor, we sum the cost of the various activities in which they are currently engaged.

Table 3.3

- 5 presents the costs for the thr e e different employee categories and Table 3.3

- 6 presents the costs for the four different categories of establishments.

Table 3.3

- 5. Pesticide Safety Training Cost, by Employee

Action Worker Farm Handler CPHE Handler Pesticide Safety Training $ 3.71 $ 4.93 $ 5.72

Verification Card $ 0.63 $ 0.41 $ 0.4 1
Expected Cost ( cost TRAIN,i,a

B ) $ 4 .34 $ 5.35 $ 6.14

See Tables 3.3

- 1 and 4; see also Appendix B, Tables B.1.a

- 3 and 4.

Table 3.3

- 6. Pesticide Safety Training Cost, by Employer

Action Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farm CPHE Worker Safety Training $ 35.60 $14.7 5 $14.75 $ 0.00 Handler Safety Training $14.46 $ 6.78 $ 0.00 $27.11
Expected Cost ( cost TRAIN,i,a

B ) $50.06 $21.53 $ 14.75 $27.11

See Tables 3.3

- 2 and 3 ; see also Appendix B, Tables B.1.a

- 5 and 6

.

The total cost of pesticide safety training is a combination of the ‘fixed’ per farm cost and the ‘variable’ per employee cost multiplied by the number of employees. Thus, the average large54

WPS farm, employing 1 8 workers of which two are handlers, is expected to incur pesticide safety training costs of $1 3 8. 88 per year.

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement The same process applies to the cost of complying with the final regulations. The final worker training requirements include immediate training without exception

, annual training, increase d training content (duration), and heightened standard for train ers

. Workers will also have to acknowledge receipt of training for the employers records an d they will be able to obtain a copy of the training record, if they request it, to show future employers that they meet the training requirement.

The per

- worker unit cost is estimated to be $ 10.39

, as shown in Table 3.3

- 7. Based on draft

material develo ped by EPA , additional training points will take about 15 minutes to cover.

Given the baseline time of 30 minutes

, workers will spend 45 minutes (0.75 hours) of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.5 percent of workers will be trained each year, consisting of everyone except for returning handlers. Each worker will have to sign a training sheet, acknowledging that they received the training, which will entail a small amount of time. Finally, obtaining a copy of the training record will ent ail time on the part of the employer to make and distribute the copy. According to results of the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 28 percent of agricultural workers had more than one employer in a year (DoL, 2005). EPA

therefore assumes that about one third of workers will request a copy of the training record, given that more workers are likely to request a record than will actually need one

.

Table 3.3

- 7 . Per

- worker Costs for Final W orker T raining R equirements

. Action/Material wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $ 1 4.64 /hr 0.75 hour 0.9 05 $ 9.94 Acknowledge Training $14.64 /hr 0.008 hour 0.9 05 $ 0.11 Copy of Training Record $0.02/page 1 page 0.3 02 $ 0.01 Distribute Copy $33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.3 02 $ 0.34
Expected Cost

( cost TRAIN

,a P ) $ 10.39

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Similarly, the expected per

- handler cost is estimated to be $ 20. 39 per year for a handler on a WPS farm and $2 3.6 3 per year for a CPHE handler.

Table 3.3

- 8 presents the expected costs for worker safety training for a large WPS farm. Because of the requirement for annual training and the lack of flexibility to delay the training of newly hired employees , EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct a lmost three worker safety trainings per year on average , in lieu of 1 .95 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS

farm will conduct an average of 1.39 trainings per year, up from 0. 81 sessions in the baseline

. This represents a 40 to 6 0 percent increase in trainings for farms with more than 10 employees, who are assumed to hold multiple trainings throughout the season, and a 5 0 to 85 percent55

increase for farms with fewer t han 10 employees as they are currently unlikely to hold frequent training sessions. As co

- workers who have attended the handler training will no longer be permitted to conduct worker training, EPA assumes that they will be replaced with certified applicat ors

. In addition to providing the training, the employer will be responsible for collecting and storing the training record from each training. EPA does not envision extensive

documentation. The per

- farm cost for the revised worker training is estimated to be about $91 per year for large farms (Table 3.3

- 8) and $44 per year for small farms.

Table 3.3

- 8 . Per

- WPS farm Costs for Final W orker T raining Requirements, Large Farm

. Action/Material wage/price unit time/quantity probability cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7. 18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.404 $14.30 Training by Train

- the

Trainer $ 47.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.289 $10.22

Training by Certified Applicator $ 33.44 /hr 0.75 hour 2.194 $55.04

Collect/Store Training

Record $ 33.44 /hr 0.11 7 hour 2.887 $11.26

Training Record $ 0

. 02 / page 1 page 2.887 $ 0

. 06

Folder $ 0.20 each 1 folder 1 .0 $ 0.2 0
Expected Cost ( cost TRAIN

,a P ) $ 91.08

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.1.b

- 3, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Handler safety training requires similar actions and material. As with worker training, the new material is expected to add 15 minutes to the training, for a total time averaging one hour. Large farms are expected to conduct 0.8 training per year, on ave rage, assuming that training events are sometimes coordinated between farms. However, record keeping events are expected to occur 1.16 times per year, on average, since each farm will have to maintain individual records even if the training includes handl ers from multiple farms. Further, there may be more than one event during the year on a farm because a worker may be ‘promoted’ to handler and rec eive training during the season, which EPA assumes corresponds to the proportion of new hires obtained from

t he NAWS (DoL, 2005). The per

- farm cost for handler training, not including the per

- handler cost, is estimated to be $ 3 2. 20 per year for large farms. The cost for a large

- small farm is estimated to be $ 2 1 .1 8, where the difference is that these smaller far ms with a single handler conduct an average of 0.5 trainings per year. Note that this represents a doubling of training

sessions over the baseline. For CPHEs, EPA estimates expected cost f or handler training to be $50.04 per year, assuming an average of 1.3 training sessions and record keeping events.

In total, EPA is estimating expected ‘fixed’ per

- establishment costs to be $1 23.28 per year for the average large WPS farm, $ 6 5

. 03 per year for the average large

- small WPS, $ 4 3

. 8 5 per year for other small W PS farms, and $5 0.04 per year for CPHEs. The total cost per employee is estimated to be $ 10.39 per worker, $ 20. 39 per on

- farm handler, and $2 3.6 3 per CPHE handler. Thus, for the average large WPS farm with 1 8 workers, including two handlers, total pestic ide safety training costs are estimated to be $3 51.08 per year.56

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs Given the estimated costs per

- establishment and per

- worker, we can estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that are affected by the requirements and summing across the various actors

.

RC
r

, i X

t = ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N
a
, i t

a

Table s 3.3

- 9 a

- c present the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Section

3.2 . Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $ 1 8.5 million per year.

Table 3.3

- 9 a . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training , WPS Farms

Region Large WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large WPS

Farm

without

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with out

W orkers Other

Small WPS

Farms

with

W orkers WPS

Farms

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)
South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $ 50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.7 8 $14.75

N a,South 8, 67 2 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $1,20 9

N a,Southwest 1,9 27 774 3,47 8 1,342 5,223 $ 269
California

cost TRAIN,a

B $85.61 $32.20 $43.30 $21.18 $22.12

N a,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 8 55
Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

N a,Subtropical 1,530 614 2,762 1,066 4,147 $ 213

N a,Northeast 6,008 2,412 10,842 4,184 16,282 $ 837

N a,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 427
Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

N a,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $1,707

N a,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $1,754

N a,Texas 7,255 2,913 13,092 5,052 19,662 $1,011

U.S. 56,677 22,757 102,284 39,469 153,607 $8,282

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 6 and Appendix B, Tables B.1.a

- 10 and 11. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 9 b . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training , CPHEs and Employees

Region CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)
South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.34 $ 5.35 $ 6.1457

Region CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)

N a,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $1,245

N a,Southwest 45 63,032 10, 221 329 $ 331
California

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.04 $ 6.13 $21.95 $25.17

N a,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $2,408
Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.03 $ 5.14 $ 5.93

N a,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 384

N a,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $1,092

N a,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $1,228
Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 3.71 $ 4.93 $ 5.72

N a,Midwest 470 255,947 61,934 3,480 $1,303

N a,Ohio Valley 488 294,148 66,738 3,609 $1,455

N a,Texas 238 152,804 38,479 1,761 $ 733

U.S. 1,936 1,910,055 300,621 14,320 $10,219

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 5 and 6 and Appendix B, Tables B.1.a

- 7 to 13. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 9c . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training, Total

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 1,209 $ 1,245 $ 2,453

N a,California $ 8 55 $ 2,408 $ 3,263

N a,Southwest $ 269 $ 331 $ 600

N a,Subtropical $ 213 $ 384 $ 597

N a,Midwest $ 1,707 $ 1,303 $ 3,010

N a,Northeast $ 837 $ 1,092 $ 1,929

N a,Ohio Valley $ 1,754 $ 1,455 $ 3,209

N a,Texas $ 1,011 $ 773 $ 1,785

N a,Northwest $ 427 $ 1,228 $ 1,655

U.S. $ 8,282 $10,219 $18,501

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 9a and b. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table s 3.3

- 10 a

- c present the estimates of regional costs under the final training regulations. Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of $ 48.4 million dollars for the first year of full implementation. However, the expanded training requirement will not be implemented until materials can be developed and disseminated

.58

Table 3.3

- 10 a . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training , WPS Farms

Large

WPS Farm

with

W orkers Large

WPS Farm

without

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with out

W orkers Other

Small WPS

Farms

with

W orkers WPS

Farms

cost TRAIN,a

F $ 123.28 $ 32.20 $ 65.03 $ 21.18 $ 43.85 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t N a,South 8,672 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $ 3,357

N a,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 1,317

N a,Southwest 1,927 774 3,478 1,342 5,223 $ 746

N a,Subtropical 1,530 614 2,762 1,066 4,147 $ 592

N a,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $ 4,740

N a,Northeast 6,008 2,412 10,842 4,184 16,282 $ 2,326

N a,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $ 4,871

N a,Texas 7,255 2,913 13,092 5,052 19,662 $ 2,809

N a,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 1,185

U.S. 5 6 ,6 77 22,757 102,284 39,469 152,568 $21,944

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.1.b

- 3 and 4. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 10 b . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training , CPHEs and Employees

CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

cost TRAIN,a

F $ 50.04 $ 10.39 $20. 39 $23.6 3 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t N a,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $ 3, 344

N a,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $ 3,763

N a,Southwest 45 63,032 10,221 329 $ 874

N a,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 1, 050

N a,Midwest 470 255,947 64,934 3,480 $ 4, 090

N a,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $ 3, 054

N a,Ohio Valley 8,762 294,148 66,738 3,609 $ 4, 528

N a,Texas 238 152,804 38,479 1,761 $ 2, 427

N a,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $ 3, 290

U.S. 1,936 1,910,055 30 0 ,6 21 14,320 $2 6,420

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.1.b

- 1 to 4. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 10c . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training, Total

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) RC Ri F 1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 3,357 $ 3, 344 $ 6, 701

N a,California $ 1,317 $ 3,763 $ 5, 079

N a,Southwest $ 746 $ 874 $ 1,6 20

N a,Subtropical $ 592 $ 1, 050 $ 1, 64359

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) RC Ri F 1 ($1,000)

N a,Midwest $ 4,740 $ 4, 090 $ 8,830

N a,Northeast $ 2,326 $ 3, 054 $ 5, 380

N a,Ohio Valley $ 4,871 $ 4, 528 $ 9, 400

N a,Texas $ 2,809 $ 2, 427 $ 5, 235

N a,Northwest $ 1,185 $ 3, 290 $ 4,7 75

U.S. $21,944 $2 6,420 $ 48

, 364

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 10a and b. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs.

T he PV of regional costs for the baseline and final is calculated over a ten

- year time horizon as

PV ( RC

R

, i X )

= ∑ RC

R

, i X

t ( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1

where variables are defined as in Section 3.2. As explained in Section 3.2.2, where annual costs

are constant, this calculation simplifies to annual costs multiplied by the sum of the discounting factors. For a seven percent discount rate over ten years, this sum equals 8.79. Thus, the PV of regional baseline costs is simply the annual cost shown in Table 3.3

- 9 times 8.79. The c ost of

pe s ticide safety training under the rule, however, will vary over time because the requirement for expanding the training will not be implemented immediately. Materials must first be developed

and disseminated. EPA assumes that t his will take about two years. F or 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. The upper bound is, like the baseline cost, simply the annual costs shown in Table 3.3

- 10 times 8.79. Results are presented in Table 3.3

- 11.

T he lower bound estimate of pesticide s a fety training assumes that baseline costs are incurred for two years and full costs under the rule are incurred for the remainder of the time horizon. The PV of costs under the rule, at a 3% discount rate, is

PV ( RC

r

, i F )

= RC

r

, i B

t = 1 ∙ ∑ 1

( 1 + 0

. 03 ) t

− 1 2

t = 1 + RC
r

, i F

t = 1 ∙ ∑ 1

( 1 + 0

. 03 ) t

− 1 10

t = 3

= RC
r

, i B

t = 1 ∙ 1

. 97 + RC
r

, i F

t = 1 ∙ 6

. 8260

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental 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.

PV ( RIC

r

, i )

= PV ( RC

r

, i F )

− PV ( RC

r

, i B )

Table 3.3

- 11 presents the PV of costs under the final rule, assuming immediate implementation, under the baseline, and the incremental costs of the revisions.

Table 3.3

- 11 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Pestic ide Safety Training

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South $ 58,881 $ 21,557 $ 37,324 $ 4,248

California $ 44,628 $ 28,671 $ 15,957 $ 1,816

Southwest $ 14,232 $ 5,273 $ 8,959 $ 1,020 Subtropical $ 14,435 $ 5,245 $ 9,190 $ 1,046

Midwest $ 77,589 $ 26,443 $ 51,145 $ 5,821

Northeast $ 47,270 $ 16,953 $ 30,317 $ 3,451 Ohio Valley $ 82,592 $ 28,195 $ 54,397 $ 6,191

Texas/Mountain West $ 46,001 $ 15,682 $ 30,319 $ 3,451

Northwest $ 39,322 $ 14,539 $ 24,783 $ 2,821

National $4 24,950 $1 62,558 $2 62,392 $ 29,864
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The national incremental cost of the pesticide safety training requirement s 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

- 1 1 . The incremental cost of pesticide safety training req uirement s is estimated to be between $ 204 and $ 262 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. The lower bound assumes that all requirements, not just the expanded training, are delayed two years while the upper bound assumes that all requirements,

i ncluding expanded training, are implemented immediately. This corresponds to an annualized cost of $ 23.2 to $ 29.9 million per year

.

EPA estimates that almost 375,000 farms will conduct pesticide safety training, including about

6 2 ,000 farms with only han dlers. On average , the annual cost of the revisions to the pesticide safety training requirements is estimated to be $ 62 to $ 80 per year per WPS farm. These costs will vary by farm size and region, in that the average number of workers varies across diff erent parts of the country. Farms that employ handlers, but not field workers, are expected to incur additional costs of $ 37 to $ 49 per year , with farms in California facing little or no additional

costs

. For large farms that hire farmworkers , average annual incremental costs are between $ 162 and $ 209 per year but vary from $ 138 to $ 178 per year in the Midwest, where the average number of workers per farm is relatively low, to $ 323 to $ 417 per year in the Northwest, where farms typically emplo y nearly 6 0 workers. For small farms hiring farmworkers , those with annual revenue less than $750,000 per year, incremental cost s are expected to average between $ 45 and $ 58 per year, rang ing from $ 42 to $ 54 per year for farms employing around three61

worke rs, as in the Midwest, to $ 73 to $ 94 per year for farms employing ten to 15 workers. The

per

- farm 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 work ers 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.

Refinements in the estimated number of workers will reduce overall costs. If farms tha t primarily produce field crops do not employ workers engaged in hand labor, then about 272 ,000 farms would be impacted by revisions to the pesticide safety training requirements and over 1.2

million field workers and almost 250,000 handlers would be affec ted . Estimated incremental

cost for pesticide safety training is between $ 15.8 million and $ 20. 4 million annually

. If the number of workers affected is less than 1.1 million, as estimated by USDA, the incremental cost
for safety training ranges from $ 14. 8 to $19. 0 million per year. At the lower bound, the

incremental cost for a large WPS farm employing both workers and handlers is estimated to be

between $ 375 and $ 485 per year, on average across the U.S. The incremental cost to small farms employing workers is expected to average between $ 6 0 and $ 80 per year

. If all 465,766 farms estimated to produce crops and hire labor are included in the analysis, the incremental cost is estimated to be $29.0 to 37.4 million per year, but per farm costs would be lower. Large farms with both workers and handlers are estimated to face incremental costs between $150 and $190 per year, while the incremental cost to small farms is estimated to be between $40 and $55 per

year, on average.



### 3.3. 2 Hazard Communication

Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their workers 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 n ot considered in this analysis. As with training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the

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

The requirements specify where, what, and when hazard information is to be provided, as well as how long it should be retained. Currently, material is to be posted at a central location for

unrestricted a ccess by workers and handlers . The content consists of information about the application : (i) the product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, (ii) the location and description of the area to be treated, (iii) time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and (iv) the duration of the REI for the pesticide. Information must be posted prior to the application, if workers are present, or prior to any worker’s first work period

on the establishment

, and the information must be updated if any changes are made in the way the application is conducted . The information must remain on display from the time of the application until 30 days after any restricted entry interval expires.

The final rule will s till require hazard information to be posted at a central location. The content will consist of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the product in addition to the application information currently required. The revised rule will specify that the description of the area treated must include the crop or site treated and the date and time the application ended

. The62

information must be posted as soon as possible , but no later than 24 hours, after the application and before any worker enters the treated area

. Wo rkers on the establishment at the time of the application must be notified under separate provisions. The hazard communication material

must still remain on display when workers are on the establishment and from the time of the application until 30 days a fter any restricted entry interval expires . Additionally, the material must be retained for two years from the date of the expiration of the REI, and provided on request by a worker, handler, an employee’s designated representative, treating medical

perso nnel, or inspector

.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs As noted above, c urrent requirements obligate the farm employer to compile and record the appropriate application information . Discussions with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. A sheet of paper is n eeded to record the

information and takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3

- 1 2 presents the estimated baseline cost per establishment

for five regions : South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest. The r epresentative

states for California

, the Subtropic al , Midwest, and Texas/Mountain West regions currently require that SDS be provided

. California and Texas also ha ve record

- keeping requirement s and requirements to make the records available upon request

. The California requirements seem to apply only to workers and handlers who are currently employed while the Texas requirements

seem to apply only to large f arms

. The ba se line cost i s somewhat underestimated as i t do es not account for revising the information in case there are changes in the application, such as a delay in the time of application.

Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes the average WPS farm wi ll make 1 6.2 pesticide applications per year, given that 81. 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. This can be varied as appropriate for size of farms, ranging from 10.5 applications for the average small

- small WPS farm to 18.9 applications for average large WPS

farms with fieldworkers

. Similarly, 8 2.2 percent of handler only WPS farms use pesticides, resulting in an average of 16.4 appli cations 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, 2008), 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 s tate 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, which acreage of several fruit trees, impl ies about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per farm, on average (NASS, 2008 , Volume 1, Chapter 2,63

Table 32). This suggests a typical farm might have four blocks of fruit production: 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 block , for a total of 37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 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 eac h 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 two herbicide

treatment s , 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insect icides 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 receives about six pesticide treatments, considering tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagg er 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 pe rcent (NASS, 2008). 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 cr op production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average. Nor does it account for the fact that hazard communication requirements apply only if a worker is present at the time of application or within 30 days of the REI. Note a s well that most farms produce a variety of crops, e.g. , both grains and vegetables.

Table 3.3

- 1 2 . Per

- Establishment Baseline Costs for Hazard Communication

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather/record information $ 33.44 /hr 0.083 hr 16.2 $ 45.11

Information sheet $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32 Post application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hr 16.2 $ 9.02
Expected Cost ( cost Ha z Com ,i, a

B ) $ 54.45

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.2.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Table 3.3

- 12, the expected cost for WPS farms to comply with current hazard communication requirements is about $ 5 4. 45 pe r year , ranging from around $5 3 per year for small WPS farms to nearly $ 62 per year for large WPS farms

.64

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement In addition to the current requirements, employers will now be required to obtain and post the SDS and retain the information for two years. SDS are commonly available on line or at pesticide dealers. Based on internet searches for a number of commonly u sed herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, EPA estimates that it takes about four minutes to obtain a SDS. The average length of a SDS is 6.7 pages, implying that about three to four double

- sided pages will be needed as part of the information provided to workers. Because the same product is likely to be used multiple times on the same establishment, albeit on different fields, EPA assumes that only about half of the applications will require the employer to obtain and copy a unique SDS.

The material must then be filed after the period of posting expires. The same material as was posted could be used for the records or the material may be retained electronically. However, for this analysis, EPA assumes that additional copies must be made and stored i n a physical folder. The expected cost for the hazard communication requirements is estimated to be $8 3. 3 0 per farm

per year, ranging from $8 0 for small farms to $ 94 per large farm per year. The actually cost may

be lower according to the number of appli cations made while workers are present.

Table 3.3

- 1 3 . Per

- Establishment Costs for Final Hazard Communication Requirements

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

R ecord application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.083 hr 16.2 $ 45.23

Information sheet $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32 Post application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hr 16.2 $ 9.05

Obtain SDS $ 33.44 /hr 0.067 hr 8.1 $ 18.09 Copy of SDS $ 0.0 2/ sheet 3

. 3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

File Haz Comm material $ 33.44 /hr 0.0 17 hr 16.2 $ 9.05

Information sheet for file $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32 Copy of SDS for file $ 0.0 2/ sheet 3

. 3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

Folder $ 0. 2 0 1 0.8 $ 0.16
Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a F ) $ 83.31

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.2.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

In estimating the cost of allowing access to application information, EPA considers two scenarios: first, the case of a current empl oyee and, second, the case of a former employee. In both cases, the actions required of the employer are to locate the appropriate record(s) and then to provide that information to the requester.

In the case of the current employee, locating the appropri ate records is likely to be fairly simple as the employee should be able to provide exact information about the time and location of the application in question. EPA estimates that the exchange of information would take about 6 minutes (0.1 hours). EPA a ssumes that a copy of the record is p r ovided to the employe e . The expected cost per re quest is estimated to be $ 3.43 . Estimating the number of requests that might65

be made is subject to a great deal of uncertainty. Given that the information is post ed fo r at least 30 days, the frequency of requests coming from current employees may be small. If we assume there will be one request for every 20 pesticide applications, there would be about 0.8 request s per farm per year , implying an average cost of $2.78 per year , as shown in Table 3.3

- 14

. The average cost to small WPS farms, given 15.7 pesticide applications on average, is e stimate d t o be $2.69 per year and for large farms averaging 18.4 applications per year, the cost is estimated to be $3.15 per year

.

Table 3.3

- 1 4 . Per

- Establishment Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Retrieve/Copy record $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 hr 0.811 $ 2.71

Records $ 0.02 4.3 sheets 0.811 $ 0 .0 7 Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a

B ) $ 2.78

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.2.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

In the case of former employees, the employer will first need to verify employment both to determine if a response is required and to help identify the time frame in question. The employer must then identify the appropriate records. The requester must provide sufficient information to identify the records, but it is likely to be more complicated that in the case of the current employee. EPA estimates that verifying employment and identifying the appropriate records will take about 12 minutes (0.2 hours) per request. If records are held electronically and can be

e

- ma iled to the requester, EPA estimates that the employer will spend another 6 minutes responding to the request. Given prevailing wages, the opportunity cost of time would be about $10 per request. E

- mail would likely be the preferred method, since it prov ides proof that the request was honored. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, about 70% of U.S. farms have internet connections, but that does not mean records are held electronically nor that the requester can receive the information electronical ly. If the response must be made using hard copies, EPA estimates the cost to be about $1 7 per request. In addition to the time to prepare t he mailing, this cost includes copies of the records and return receipt postage to obtain proof that the request w as fulfilled. Again, the frequency of requests is subject to a great deal of uncertainty. If we assume that there will be one request for every 100 employees and half the requests can be addressed by e

- mail, as shown in Table 3.3

- 15, the pe r

- e mployee cos t would be

around $0.14 per employee per year. EPA estimates that, on average, WPS farms employ 6 workers, implying that the frequency of receiving a request would be 0.06 (6% chance) per year. Large farms (annual revenues of $750,000 per year) average 1 8 employees, implying a frequency of 0.18 per year or slightly less than one request every five years. Large farms in California and Washington average about 50 employees, suggesting they would receive about one request every two years. Large greenhouses average over 100 employees, which would imply about one request per year

.66

Table 3.3

- 1 5 . Per

- E mployee Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Retrieve/Copy record $ 33.44 /hr 0.20 0.010 $ 0.06

E

- mail records $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 0.005 $ 0.02

Mail records $ 33.44 /hr 0.20 0.005 $ 0.03

Records $ 0.02 4.3 sheets 0.005 $ 0.00 Envelope/Postage $ 3.88 1 0.005 $ 0.02
Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a

B ) $ 0.14

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.2.a

- 5, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

W e estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments in each region that are affected by the requirements

. Table 3.3

- 1 6 presents the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Chapter 3.2

. Representative states for

the Subtropical and Midwest regions require employers to provide the SDS, so baseline costs are

estimated to be average $70.65 and $82.84 per small and large farm per year , respectively

. The

per

- farm costs in California are estimated to be $83.05 and $97.38 p er small and large farms per year considering the additional record

- keeping costs. Texas requires the SDS and recordkeeping by large farms , implying baseline costs of $ 52.67 and $97.38 per small and large farm per year. In addition, under the provision t o make records available to former employees, there are expected costs of $0.07 per worker in the Texas/Mountain West region since about half the workers and handlers are employed on large farms. See Appendix B for details. Under current requirements, th e national cost is estimated to be $ 2 3. 2 million per year.

Table 3.3

- 16 . Regional Baseline Costs, Hazard Communication

Region Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest

cost HazCom

,a B $61.76 $52.67 $ 0.00

N a,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $3,131

N a,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $ 696

N a,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $2,169

N a,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $4,543

N a,Northwest 4,289 15,949 287,277 $1,105 California

cost HazCom

,a B $97.38 $83.05 $0.00

N a,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $1,936 Subtropical and Midwest

cost HazCom

,a B $82.84 $70.65 $0.00

N a,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 741

N a,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $5,92867

Region Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)

Texas/Mountain West

cost HazCom

,a B $93.62 $79.84 $0.07

N a,Texas 10,168 37,806 163,682 $2,993

U.S. 79,434 295,360 1,995,038 $23,242

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.2.a

- 1 to 5. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 1 7 presents the estimates of regional costs under the final hazard communication requirements . Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of $ 3 2.5 million dollars per year

.

Table 3.3

- 17 . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Hazard Communication Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler

cost HazCom

,a F $ 94.23 $83 .05 $ 0.14 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a
N a,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $ 4,969

N a,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $ 1,981

N a,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $1,106

N a,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 883

N a,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $ 7,007

N a,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $ 3,452

N a,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $ 7,206

N a,Texas 10,168 37,806 287,277 $4,152

N a,Northwest 4,289 15,949 287,277 $1,782

U.S. 79,434 295,360 1,995,038 $ 32,538

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.2.b

- 1 and 2. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. There are no changes over time in the requirements for hazard communication. Thus, the PV of

costs over the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3

- 1 8 presents the PV of hazard communication costs under the final rule, under the baseline, and the incremental costs of the revisions. Incremental costs vary substantially across regions, not only b ecause of differences in the number of farms covered by the WPS, but because of state regulations. In states where records and/or SDS are already required, such as California

and Florida , the incremental costs are low. To the extent that the baseline cos ts are underestimated because they do not account for the cost of updating information that changes between planning the application and conducting the application, the incremental costs will be

overestimated.68

Table 3.3

- 18 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Inc remental Costs , Hazard Communication

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South 43,659 $27,508 16,152 1,838

California 17,406 $17,009 397 45

Southwest 9,718 $ 6,113 3,605 410 Subtropical 7,758 $ 6,511 1,247 142

Midwest 61,562 $52,087 9,475 1,078

Northeast 30,333 $19,058 11,276 1,283 Ohio Valley 63,309 $39,913 23,396 2,663

Texas/Mountain West 36,482 $26,300 10,183 1,159

Northwest 15,654 $ 9,709 5,945 677

National $ 285,881 $204,206 $81,675 $ 9,296

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the hazard communication requirement s is estimated to be $ 81.7 mil lion over ten years, or about $ 9 .3 million dollars annually. EPA estimates that there are 374,79 4 affected farms implying an annual cost of about $ 24.80 per farm. The cost per farm varies across states and regions depending on current state requirements and

w ill also depend on how many pesticide applications are made . Estimated incremental costs range from less than one dollar to nearly $ 44 per farm per year. EPA estimates that small farms will incur somewhat lower costs over time because they are less likel y to use pesticides. However, the main reason that small farms would face lower costs , which is not captured in the analysis, is that workers are less likely to be present throughout the entire growing season and

hazard communication is not needed if work ers are not present within about a month of the application.

At the lower bound, EPA estimates that 272,172 WPS farms would be impacted by revisions to the hazard communication requirements at a total annual incremental cost of about $ 7.3 million.

The es timated cost per farm for the changes in the WPS, however, are largely unchanged. At the upper bound, with almost 466,000 farms impacted, the total annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $ 10.9 million.



### 3.3. 3 Notification

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

i nformation 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.

Revisions to the WPS will cover three areas pertaining to not ifications: informing workers of treated areas under a restricted entry interval (REI), informing workers of required safety69

precautions if they must enter an area under a REI, and informing workers of basic safety precautions and decontamination procedur es. Under the current rule, employers must usually inform workers of areas under a REI either orally or by posting warning signs a t reasonably expected points of worker entry into a field and when a treated field is near worker housing

. Certain products require both oral notification and warning signs and indoor production areas (greenhouses) must always post areas under a REI. If workers are to be sent into a field under a REI, the employer must inform them of all labeling requirements related to human hazards and precautions as well as ensure that the worker uses PPE as required by the label and follows any other label requirement s. Finally, the WPS requires the employer to display

, at a central location, a poster describing safety practices and decontamination procedures.

Under the final WPS, employers will be required to post warning signs if the REI is greater than 48 hours. For products used in outdoor production with shorter REIs, employers may notify workers orally, unless posting is requi red on the label. For gree n houses, employers are not required to post warning signs if the REI is less than or equal to four hours if they provide

workers with oral notification.

Revisions will specify and expand the information provided to workers ent ering fields under a

REI:

 Location of early entry area

 Pesticide ( s ) applied

 Dates and times REI begins and ends

 Exception that allows early entry and description of permitted tasks

 Whether contact with treated surfaces is permitted

 Amount of time worker is allowed in area

 Required PPE

 Location of pesticide safety information and of decontamination supplies

Finally, the safety information must be displayed at a central location, at permanent decontamination sites, and where decontamination supplies for more than 10 workers or handlers are located. Further, the employer will be required to provide contact information for medical

facilities and for the state agency responsible for WPS enforcement on the safety information display.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs To assess the impacts of revisions to the notification requirements in the WPS, we identify a number of different actors. There will be actions required of both the employer and worker, where the worker spends some time receiving information. We al so distinguish WPS farms by size and by type of production, specifically to identify greenhouses. The Census of Agriculture defines farms according to the primary source of revenue. Given the available information, EPA

estimates there to be 947 WPS farms that are primarily greenhouse operations. They may also have outdoor production. Similarly, many of the remaining 311,618 WPS farms have greenhouse as part of the farm. In this analysis, we abstract from the reality of diverse production to focus on th e impacts of revisions specific to the type of production. In the aggregate, the differences likely offset each other. For impacts at the farm level, a diverse operation will likely face costs that are a reflective of both types of production.70

Posting warning signs. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e. , both verbal communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of al l applications. 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 large

- small farm is presented in Table 3.3

- 1 9 , 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. As with hazard communication ( Section 3.3.2), we assume a farm makes 20 applications per year, but this is weighted by the proportion of WPS farms, by size, that used pesticides in 2012. Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will have to be informed of the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multi ple notificat ions. For example, 94.3 percent of large

- small farms used pesticides in 2012, which EPA interprets as the likelihood that farms of this size will use pesticides in any given year. Assuming 20 applications in general, a large

- small farm will make 18.7 applications on average. Further assuming that each application averages 1.1 notifications to reach all workers, implies 20.8 notifications per year. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time consuming to or ally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs. 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 ; thus a large

- sm all farm will post the REI 1.87 times per year, on average . EPA assumes that two signs are generally needed for posting and they can be reused . We assume that about some farms have worker housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed

, but this assumption has no effect on the incremental cost . 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, w hich varies across farm size ( Section

3.2.2 ). In the case of a large

- small farm, that weighting is 94.3 percent, for a likelihood of 47.2 percent. A larger proportion of farms purchases two signs, with a 38.3 percent chance while the remainder, 8.9 perce nt purchases three signs. The expected per

- farm cost is estimated to be between $ 3 5 and $1 37 depending on the size of the farm. See Appendix B.

Table 3.3

- 1 9 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs

, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/pric e

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 20.8 $ 34.70 Signs $ 7.3 5 each 2 signs 0.3 83 $ 5.63 Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.333 hour 1. 53 $ 1 7.06 Signs $ 7.3 5 e ach 3 signs 0.089 $ 1.96

Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.50 hour 0.36 $ 5.95
Expected Cost ( cost REI ,i, a B ) $ 65.31

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.3.a

- 2, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Since greenhouses must always post REI warning signs, as well as provide oral notification for certain products, baseline costs are greater than for outdoor production. Costs are estimated to71

be about $1 32 per year for a small greenhouse and $1 80 per year for a large greenhouse, where the largest proportion of costs is from the posting of signs.

Associated with the per

- farm cost of notification is the per

- worker cost of receiving the information, the reciprocal of the employer providing the information. That is, each worker spends three minutes receiving a notification. If a large

- small farm makes 20 applications necessitating notification and, coincidentally, 94.3 percent of workers employed on large

- small farms work on farms using pesticides, we would expect 18.7 notifications per worker per year. However, workers will not always be on the farm during the application or when a REI is in

effect . Assuming the worker is present in 80 percent of cases, the average worker would receive

15.1 notifications of pesticide applications each year at an opportunity cost of $1 1.04 per year. Depending on farm size, the per worker cost may be as low as $7. 74 per year on large farms, as we assume that large farms will typically post a REI rather than try to inform al l the workers. Expected per

- worker cost for a greenhouse ranges from $0.5 9 to $0. 92 per year because only the few applications involving ‘double notification’ products will result in oral notification.

Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. W orkers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period if the situation meets criteria specified in the WPS

. Prior to entering the field, w orkers must have either read the product labeling or been informed

of the label ing requirements related to hazard or safety. EPA assumes that gathering the currently required information takes 1 minute as it comes directly from the pesticide label

. Further, EPA assumes that providing the information takes 3 minutes. Several assump tions go into calculating the probability of an early entry event :

 EPA assumes that there will be an early entry event about 1 for every 50 applications or 2% of applications.

 Assuming 20 applications farm per year, there is a 40% probability a WPS farm applying pesticides will have an early entry event.

 The probability is further weighted by the likelihood of WPS farms using pesticides in any given year , calculated as the proportion of WPS farms using pesticides in 2012 (NASS, 2012 and 2008 b ), which vari es by the size of the farm.

Table 3.3

- 20 pr esents the calculation for a medium

- small farm, where the likeli hood of using pesticides is 79.5 percent, leading to a probability of an early entry event of 0.31 8 or 31. 8 percent per year. The expected c o st for a medium

- small WPS farm is $0.7 1 per year and the cost ranges from $0.4 7 to $0. 84 per year for small

- small to large WPS farms

. See Appendix B for details.

Table 3.3

- 20 . Per Medium

- Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs

, Information for Early Entry

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hour 0.31 8 $ 0.1 8

Provide Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.31 8 $ 0.53
Expected Cost ( cost EarlyEntry

,i, a B ) $ 0.71

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.3.a

- 8, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.72

Again, there is an associated cost per worker for the three minutes spent receiving the information prior to entry. As above, there is a 40 percent chance of an event entailing early entry into a treated field. EPA assumes that 50 percent of workers on a farm would be involved in any such activity, implying a 20 percent chance for each worker. This is weighted by the

likelihood of a worker being employed on a farm that uses pesticides. For a med ium

- small WPS farm, this is 84.1 percent. Calculated costs range from $0. 07 to $0.1 4 per worker, on average.

Safety displays. Currently, a single safety poster is require d at the establish ment’s central location. Some establishments may have multiple ‘central’ locations, as fields may be widely dispersed, but as the WPS revisions only add posting locations, the the existing diversity among

farms does not alter the incremental costs. Accor ding to an on

- line source of WPS materials, a safety poster costs $6.25 (Gempler’s, 2014). Other key assumptions are :

 it takes 2 minutes to set up the safety poster and

 a poster lasts about 3 years, so one

- third of WPS farms will need to purchase a sign. The probability that a poster is purchased or displayed is weighted by the likelihood that a WPS

farm uses pesticides, which varies across size and whether production is in a greenhouse or outdoors. EPA estimates the expected cost of the safety display to range from $1.6 8 to $ 3.0 3 per

year, on average.

Baseline Notification Costs

. Table 3.3

- 2 1 presents the estimated costs of the individual components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total baseline notification costs.

Table 3.3

- 2 1. Per

- Actor Baseline Costs, Notification.

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total Large WPS Farm $ 136.58 $ 0.84 $ 3.02 $140.45
Large

- Small

WPS Farm $ 65.31 $ 0.84 $ 3.02 $ 69.16

Medium

- Small

WPS Farm $ 53.75 $ 0.7 1 $ 2.54 $ 57.00

Small

- Small

WPS Farm $ 35.20 $ 0.47 $ 1.68 $ 37.35

Large WPS

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 0.66 $ 2.3 8 $182.80

Small WPS

Greenhouse $1 31.64 $ 0.49 $ 1.74 $133.87

Large Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.72 $ 2.72

Small Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.01 $ 2.01

Worker, Large

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 7.88

Worker, Large

Small WPS Farm $ 11.04 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 11.17

Worker, Other

Small WPS Farm $ 9.63 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 9.7573

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total Worker, Large

Greenhouse $ 0.92 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 1.04

Worker, Small

Greenhouse $ 0.5 9 $ 0.07 $ 0.00 $ 0.6 7

Source: EPA estimation. See Appendix B, Tables B.3.a

- 1 to 10. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The total cost for an establishment is a function of the per

- establishment cost and the cost per

worker multiplied by the number of workers. Thus, a small greenhouse, which employs an average of five workers, would be expected to bear costs associated with these notification requirements of $1 37.22 per year, including $1 33.87 in the cost of signs and employ er time and $3.3 5 in employee time.

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement

Posting warning signs. The costs associated with the new posting requirements are the material expense of additional signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of these costs is a reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3

- 2 0 presents the calculations for a large

- small farm . We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Double notification is still required for ten percent of applications. The assumption that 40 percent of applications, or eight out of 20, are associated with a REI of mo re than 48 hours is somewhat conservative. Long REIs, especially in fruit and vegetable production, can impede routine but necessary activities. As shown in Table 3.3

- 2 2 , the estimated cost for a

l a rge

- small farm is $132 per year, on average, compared to $ 6 5 per year in the baseline. T he expected per

- establishment cost ranges between $ 6 5 and $1 37 , where large farms with many workers are not expected to be impacted since posting is probably less costly than orally informing a large number of workers

.

Tab le 3.3

- 2 2 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, Post REI warning signs

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 14.5 $ 24.29 Signs $ 7.35 e ach 4 signs 0.3 83 $ 11.2 5 Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.333 hour 6.1 2 $ 68.26 Signs $ 7.35 e ach 6 signs 0.089 $ 3.9 2 Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.50 hour 1.4 2 $ 2 3.81
Expected Cost ( cost REI ,i, a F ) $1 31.53

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Tables B.3.b

- 2, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected cost decreases to $ 7 to $ 8 per

- worker per

year compared to $ 8 to $11 in the baseline.74

The rule will give greenhouse employers the option of orally notify ing workers if the REI is less than four hours. Large greenhouses may not find this option attractive, if it means notifying a large number of workers, but it may reduce some posting costs for small greenhouses. EPA estimates that costs for small greenho uses may be around $111 per year under the rule, compared to $132 per year in the baseline. However, there will be some costs to notifying workers, increasing the cost per worker to about $1. 80 per year compared to $0.60 per year in the

baseline.

Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. The revisions expand the information employers will be required to provide workers entering a field while the REI is still in effect. As a result, the employer will spend more time than in t he baseline to gather and

disseminate the information. Table 3.3

- 2 3 provides the estimates for a medium

- small WPS farm.

Across the types and sizes of WPS farms, expected costs range from $1.41 to $2. 53

.

Table 3.3

- 2 3 . Per Medium

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, In formation for Early Entry

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.167 hour 0.31 8 $ 1.06

Provide Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.167 hour 0.31 8 $ 1.06
Expected Cost ( cost EarlyEntry

,i, a F ) $ 2.13

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Tables B.3.b

- 8, for data sources. Numbe rs may not sum due to rounding.

The expected cost per worker increases as a function of the time spent to receive the expanded information. The estimated range is from $0.1 5 per worker in a small greenhouse to $0.2 8 per worker on a large WPS farm. Costs are calculated as the average across all workers on an establishment considering that an early entry event may not happen every year.

Safety displays. Under the revised requirements, WPS farms will have to place sa fety displays along with decontamination supplies , if there are 11 or more workers and handlers in the treated

area , and at permanent decontamination sites

. For most establishments, the permanent

decontamination site will be the main location at which dis plays are maintained in the baseline. Further, the employer will be required to provide contact information for medical facilities and for the state agency responsible for WPS enforcement on the safety information display

Farms producing fruits and veget ables often employ large work crews at harvest and EPA anticipates that the large and large

- small farms of this type will be those impacted by the requirement for the additional safety display. Large greenhouses, which average over 100 workers, will also likely have situations where more than 10 workers are at a treated area.

Table 3.3

- 2 4 presents the calculation of expected costs for a large

- small farm. EPA assumes that a poster is replaced about every three years. Given that 94.3% of large

- small farms are estimated to use pesticides in a given year (Appendix A), 31.4% of farms are expected to purchase a75

display for the central posting each year. EPA assumes that adding contact information to the display will take about three minutes. All large

- small farms using pesticides must post the display. Further, EPA estimates that there are about 13,500 large

- small fruit and vegetable farms using pesticides (Appendix A), implying almost 4,500 purchasing signs each year, or 4.4% of 102,024 large

- small farms an d nurseries. Farms of this size will likely find one display to be

sufficient , to which contact information must be added . EPA assumes that a large

- small fruit/vegetable farm will have 4 occasions/year, on average, to employ a crew of 11 or more,

based o n information on the number of blocks of fruit on a typical Washington fruit farm (NASS, 2008). Thus, EPA estimates almost 54,000 display or an average of 0.5 across all large

small farms and nurseries. Given these parameters, EPA estimates that, across all large

- small farms, the average cost of the final requirements for safety displays is $4.48 per year. See Appendix B for details about farms of other sizes

.

Table 3.3

- 2 4 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, Safety Displays

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Central Poster $ 6.25 e ach 1 display 0.314 $ 1.97

Add Contact Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.314 $ 0.53 Post Central Display $ 33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.943 $ 1.05

Decontamination Displays $ 6.25 e ach 1 display 0.044 $ 0.28

Add Contact Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0 .044 $ 0.07

Post Decontamination Displays $33.44/hr 0.033 hour 0 .529 $ 0.59

Expected Cost ( cost SafetyDisplay ,i, a F ) $ 4.48

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Tables B.3.b

- 10, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Notification Costs under Revised WPS

. Table 3.3

- 2 5 presents the estimated costs of the individual components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total notification costs

under the revised WPS

.

Table 3.3

- 2 5 . Per

- Actor Costs under Revisions , Notification.

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total Large WPS Farm $ 136.58 $ 2.53 $ 5.72 $1 44.83 Large

- Small

WPS Farm $ 131.53 $ 2. 52 $ 4.48 $1 38.53

Medium

- Small

WPS Farm $106.33 $ 2.13 $ 2.99 $11 1.44

Small

- Small

WPS Farm $ 6 5.07 $ 1.41 $ 1.98 $ 6 8.46

Large WPS

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 1.99 $ 14.05 $19 5.8076

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Small WPS

Greenhouse $111.33 $ 1.46 $ 2.05 $ 11 4

. 84

Large Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.19 $ 3.19

Small Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.03 $ 3.03

Worker, Large

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.2 8 $ 0.00 $ 8.02

Worker, Large

Small WPS Farm $ 7.73 $ 0.2 8 $ 0.00 $ 8.00

Worker, Other

Small WPS Farm $ 6. 74 $ 0.2 4 $ 0.00 $ 6.98

Worker, Large

Greenhouse $ 0. 92 $ 0.2 3 $ 0.00 $ 1. 15

Worker, Small

Greenhouse $ 1. 78 $ 0.1 5 $ 0.00 $ 1. 93

Source: EPA estimation. See Appendix B, Tables B.3.b

- 1 to 10. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Again, t he total cost for an establishment is a function of the per

- establishment cost and the cost per worker multiplied by the number of workers. For example , a small greenhous e, which employs an average of five workers, would be expected to bear costs associated with these notification requirements of $1 2 4.49 per year, including $11 4

. 84 in the cost of signs and employer time and $ 9.65 in employee time. This is a decrease from the baseline of almost $13.00 per year due to the cost savings from the option to notify workers orally for REIs of four

hours or less.

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

W e estimate the regional level baseline and compliance c osts by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that are affected by the requirements and summing

across the various actors

.

RC
r

, i X

t = ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N
a
, i t

a

In this case, we examine the impacts of the three requirements separately before summing the costs to determine the impacts of the notification component as a whole. Table s 3.3

- 2 6 a

- d present the baseline costs for REI notification , where the number of actors is presented in Section

3.2 . Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $ 3 8.4 million per year.77

Table 3.3

- 2 6 a. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farms with

Workers
Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medium

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost REI ,a B $136.58 $ 65.31 $ 5 3.75 $ 35.20 Region N i a t South 8,649 15,610 12,584 10,835 $ 3,258

California 3,392 6,121 4,935 4,249 $ 1,278

Southwest 1,922 3,469 2,796 2,408 $ 724 Subtropical 1,526 2,755 2,221 1,912 $ 575

Midwest 12,211 22,037 17,766 15,296 $ 4,600

Northeast 5,992 10,815 8,718 7,506 $ 2,257 Ohio Valley 12,550 22,649 18,259 15,721 $ 4,728

Texas/Mt West 7,236 13,059 10,528 9,064 $ 2,726

Northwest 3,053 5,509 4,441 3,824 $ 1,150

U.S. 56,532 102,024 82,248 70,816 $21,297

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 21. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 6 b . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farm and Nursery Workers

Worker

Large WPS

Farm Worker

Large

- Small

WPS Farm Worker

Medium

Small WPS

Farm Worker

Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 7. 74 $ 11.04 $ 9.63 $ 9.63 Region N i a t South 117,910 52,326 32,038 20,669 $ 1,998

California 169,871 75,385 46,157 29,777 $ 2,878

Southwest 32,975 14,634 8,960 5,780 $ 559 Subtropical 43,967 19,511 11,946 7,707 $ 745

Midwest 133,898 59,421 36,382 23,471 $ 2,268

Northeast 118,910 52,770 32,310 20,844 $ 2,015 Ohio Valley 153,883 68,290 41,812 26,974 $ 2,607

Texas/Mt West 79,939 35,475 21,721 14,013 $ 1,354

Northwest 147,888 65,629 40,183 25,923 $ 2,505

U.S. 999,240 443,442 271,509 175,158 $ 16,929

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 21. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 6 c . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Greenhouses

Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 179.76 $ 131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59 Region N i a t South 2 2 12 3 1,932 511 $ 22

California 9 4 8 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 578 Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 179.76 $ 131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59 Region N i a t Subtropical 4 2 2 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 3 1 17 3 2,194 580 $ 31

Northeast 1 5 8 5 1,948 515 $ 16 Ohio Valley 3 2 17 8 2,522 667 $ 32

Texas/Mt West 19 103 1,310 347 $ 18

Northwest 8 43 2,423 641 $ 10

U.S. 145 803 16,374 4,331 $ 149

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 21. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 6 d . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Total

Region WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers WPS

Greenhouse RC Ri B 1

($1,000)

South $ 3,258 $ 1,998 $ 22 $ 5,278

California $ 1,278 $ 2,878 $ 11 $ 4,167

Southwest $ 724 $ 559 $ 5 $ 1,288 Subtropical $ 575 $ 745 $ 4 $ 1,324

Midwest $ 4,600 $ 2,268 $ 31 $ 6,899

Northeast $ 2,257 $ 2,015 $ 16 $ 4,288 Ohio Valley $ 4,728 $ 2,607 $ 32 $ 7,367

Texas/Mt West $ 2,726 $ 1,354 $ 18 $ 4,099

Northwest $ 1,150 $ 2,505 $ 10 $ 3,665

U.S. $21,297 $16,929 $ 149 $ 38,375

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 26a to 26c. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table s 3.3

- 2 7 a

- d present the estimates of regional costs under the final REI notification requirements . Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of $ 48.8 million dollars per year. This is an increase of $10.4 million over the baseline. Considering that EPA estimates nearly 313,000 farms employing farmworkers will be impacted, this represents an average incremental cost of around $33.40 per year per farm, nursery, and greenhouse.

Table 3.3

- 2 7 a. Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Farms

with Workers
Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medium

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07 Region N i a t South 8,649 15,610 12,584 10,835 $ 5,278

California 3,392 6,121 4,935 4,249 $ 2,070

Southwest 1,922 3,469 2,796 2,408 $ 1,173 Subtropical 1,526 2,755 2,221 1,912 $ 93179 Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medium

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07 Region N i a t Midwest 12,211 22,037 17,766 15,296 $ 7,451

Northeast 5,992 10,815 8,718 7,506 $ 3,658 Ohio Valley 12,550 22,649 18,259 15,721 $ 7,658

Texas/Mt West 7,236 13,059 10,528 9,064 $ 4,415

Northwest 3,053 5,509 4,441 3,824 $ 1,863

U.S. 56,532 102,024 82,248 70,816 $3 4,494

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 25. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 7 b . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Farm and Nursery Workers

Worker Large WPS

Farm Worker

Large

- Small

WPS Farm Worker

Medium

Small WPS

Farm Worker

Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 7. 74 $ 7.73 $ 6.74 $ 6.74 Region N i a t South 117,910 52,326 32,038 20,669 $ 1,672

California 169,871 75,385 46,157 29,777 $ 2,409

Southwest 32,975 14,634 8,960 5,780 $ 468 Subtropical 43,967 19,511 11,946 7,707 $ 624

Midwest 133,898 59,421 36,382 23,471 $ 1,899

Northeast 118,910 52,770 32,310 20,844 $ 1,686 Ohio Valley 153,883 68,290 41,812 26,974 $ 2,182

Texas/Mt West 79,939 35,475 21,721 14,013 $ 1,134

Northwest 147,888 65,629 40,183 25,923 $ 2,097

U.S. 999,240 443,442 271,509 175,158 $ 14,171

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 25. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 7 c . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements,

Greenhouses
Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 179.76 $ 111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73 Region N i a t South 2 2 12 3 1,932 511 $ 20

California 9 4 8 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 5 Subtropical 4 2 2 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 3 1 17 3 2,194 580 $ 28

Northeast 1 5 8 5 1,948 515 $ 15 Ohio Valley 3 2 17 8 2,522 667 $ 2980 Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 179.76 $ 111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73 Region N i a t Texas/Mt West 19 103 1,310 347 $ 17

Northwest 8 43 2,423 641 $ 10

U.S. 145 803 16,374 4,331 $ 138

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3

- 25. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 7 d . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Total

Region WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers WPS

Greenhouse RC Ri F 1

($1,000)

South $ 5,278 $ 1,672 $ 2 0 6,970

California $ 2,070 $ 2,409 $ 11 4,489

Southwest $ 1,173 $ 468 $ 5 1,645 Subtropical $ 931 $ 624 $ 4 1,559

Midwest $ 7,451 $ 1,899 $ 28 9,378

Northeast $ 3,658 $ 1,686 $ 15 5,358 Ohio Valley $ 7,658 $ 2,182 $ 29 9,869

Texas/Mt West $ 4,415 $ 1,134 $ 17 5,566

Northwest $ 1,863 $ 2,097 $ 10 3,970

U.S. $34,494 $14,171 $ 138 $ 48,803

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 27a to 26c. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 2 8 presents the regional baseline costs of the three notification requirements, along with the total costs for notification component. Providing the required information for early entry activities is estimated to cost $481,000 per year nationally while prov iding pesticide safety displays at central locations costs $973,000 per year. Together with REI notifications, the notification requirements are estimated to cost WPS farms about $39.8 million per year.

Table 3.3

- 2 8 . Regional Baseline Costs, Notificatio n Requirements, Total

Region REI

Notifications Early Entry

Information Pesticide Safety

Displays RC Ri B 1

($1,000)

South $ 5,278 $ 65 $ 149 $ 5,492

California $ 4,167 $ 57 $ 58 $ 4,282

Southwest $ 1,288 $ 16 $ 33 $ 1,337 Subtropical $ 1,324 $ 17 $ 26 $ 1,368

Midwest $ 6,899 $ 83 $ 210 $ 7,192

Northeast $ 4,288 $ 54 $ 103 $ 4,445 Ohio Valley $ 7,367 $ 89 $ 216 $ 7,672

Texas/Mt West $ 4,099 $ 49 $ 124 $ 4,272

Northwest $ 3,665 $ 50 $ 53 $ 3,768

U.S. $ 38,375 $ 481 $ 973 $ 39,828

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.81

The estimated regional costs under the final rule are presented in Table 3.3

- 2 9

. In total, notification requirements under the final WPS are expected to cost $51.4 million per year. Early entry informatio n is estimated to cost $1.2 million per year, an increase of $706,000. Given nearly 313,000 WPS farms that may be impacted, the cost per WPS farm is around $2.25 per year. Pesticide safety displays are expected to cost almost $1.4 million per year, imply ing an incremental cost of $389,000 per year. Almost 375,000 WPS farms may be affected, including farms that do not employ workers for hand labor activities. On average, the cost per WPS farm is just over $1.00 per year, but costs will be higher for farm s using large labor crews.

Table 3.3

- 2 9 . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, Notification Requirements, Total

Region REI

Notifications Early Entry

Information Pesticide Safety

Displays RC Ri F 1

($1,000)

South 6,970 $ 164 $ 208 $ 7,342

California 4,489 $ 127 $ 82 $ 4,699

Southwest 1,645 $ 40 $ 46 $ 1,731 Subtropical 1,559 $ 41 $ 37 $ 1,636

Midwest 9,378 $ 215 $ 294 $ 9,886

Northeast 5,358 $ 132 $ 144 $ 5,634 Ohio Valley 9,869 $ 229 $ 302 $ 10,400

Texas/Mt West 5,566 $ 127 $ 174 $ 5,867

Northwest 3,970 $ 112 $ 74 $ 4,155

U.S. $ 48,803 $ 1,187 $ 1,362 $51,352

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. There are no changes over time in the requirements for notification. Thus, the PV of costs over
the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3

- 30 presents the PV of notification costs un der the final rule, under the baseline, and the incremental costs of the revisions. Incremental costs vary substantially across regions due to

differences in the number of farms and workers covered by the WPS.82

Table 3.3

- 30 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Notification

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South $64,510 $ 48,25 0 $ 16,259 $ 1,851

California $41,282 $ 37,6 21 $ 3,661 $ 417

Southwest $ 15, 211 $ 11,747 $ 3,464 $ 394 Subtropical $ 14, 378 $ 12,018 $ 2,361 $ 269

Midwest $86,836 $ 63,193 $ 23,670 $ 2,694

Northeast $49,505 $ 39,058 $ 10,447 $ 1,189 Ohio Valley $91,378 $ 67,408 $ 23,970 $ 2,728

Texas/Mountain West $51,551 $ 37,537 $ 14,013 $ 1,595

Northwest $36,508 $ 33,103 $ 3,405 $ 388

National $451,186 $349,936 $101,251 $11,524

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the notification requirement s is estimated to be $ 1 01 million over ten years, or about $ 1 1.5 million dollars annually. EPA estimates that there are 374,794 affected farms imp lying an annual cost of about $ 30.75 per farm. The cost per farm

varies considerably across the type of farm, however . Estimated incremental costs range from only less than $0.50 per year for a farm that employs handlers, but not field workers, to $ 44 per

year for a small farm that employs field workers . EPA estimates that small farms employing

fie ld workers incur higher costs than other kinds of farms because the requirement to post REIs longer than 48 hours. Large farms, employing many workers, are already likely to post REIs rather than try to orally notify all workers . However, the cost to sma ll farms may be

overestimated since it is assumed that all workers are present throughout the entire growing

season implying that they must be notified of all application s

. If most workers are present only during the harvest season, notification and posti ng of many early season pesticide applications

are unnecessary.

Using more refined estimates of farmworkers implies that 272,172 farms would be impacted by

revisions to the notification requirements at a total annual cost of $ 3.4 to $ 3.6 million. The

est imated cost per farm would be less than $ 15 per year , on average, because so many of the farms, 182,263, would be considered ‘handler

- only’ and would not be impacted by either the REI or early entry requirements in either the baseline or under the final ru le

. If all 465,766 farms estimated to produce crops and hire labor employ workers in hand labor activities, the incremental cost of the revisions to the notification requirements is estimated to cost $16.4 million per year for an average of $35 per year p er farm.



### 3.3. 4 Age

EPA is placing minimum age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter areas subject to an REI if they are not an exempted family member . These restrictions could raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid employees in place of younger, lower paid s taff.83

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs In estimating the impact of age requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3 .3.1. 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 new requirement.

Minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age who work in agriculture from handling pesticides classified as Category I or II toxicity

. California has a minimum age of 18 for handling pesticides in toxicity categories I and II and a few states have set minimum age requirements for handlers of Restricted Use Pesticides.

Table 3

. 3

- 31 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling

tasks

. 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. We

a ssum e that 14 to 15

- year olds are paid 60 percent of the hourly wage of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 75 percent of adult wages. The unloaded wage rate for adult handlers is $ 13.70 per hour ( BLS

, 20 14 b ). EPA calculates the wage for adole scent handlers on

- farm to be $8.22 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $ 10.28 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former

is somewhat higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and seems reasonable for an adolescent in a skilled position

. Loaded wages are, therefore, $1 2.03 and $1 5.03 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and for 16 and 17 year olds , respectively.

Among employees surveyed by the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied pesticides in the previous five years, 0.4 1 percent were 14

- and

15

- year olds, 1.87 percent were 16

- and 17

- year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. This proportion is then weighted by the likelihood that a handler works on a farm that uses pesticides.

Table 3.3

- 31 presents the overall average for a WPS farm that employs farmworkers. Th e 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 handler for these tasks of about $1 5.60 per handler per year. For a WPS farm that only employs handl ers, the expected cost is $13.70 per handler per year since the proportion of those farms using pesticides is somewhat lower than that for farms employing farmworkers.

Table 3

. 3

- 31

. Baseline Labor C osts for Handlers, by Age , WPS Farm Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

14

- 15 Year Old $ 12.03 50 0.004 $ 2.33

16

- 17 Year Old $ 1 5.03 50 0.01 8 $ 13.27
Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 15.60

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.4. a

- 1, f or data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.84

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. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 2013, about 77,000 people were employed in pest control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, of which 1,000 were aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This occupational category does not exactly align

with agricultural handlers and potentially overstates the proportion of the workforce consisting of adolescents due to the potential liabilities of applying pesticides to crops. EPA assumes that no

ha n dl e rs are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that these handlers work part time, but seasonally, 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 tha t 16 and 17 year

- olds are paid 75 percent of the average adult wage. The expected labor cost, averaged across all workers, is estimated to be $145.15.

Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. A s noted in the

Notification sect ion (Chapter 3.3.3), e ntry during a restricted

- entry interval may occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities.

Table 3.3

- 32 presents the estimated baseline costs for adolescents who may be asked to engage in agricultural activities in a field that is under a REI. The average unloaded wage rate of $ 10.01 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 $ 6.01 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $ 5.01 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 consecutive calendar days after initial employment with a given employer. Loaded wages are calcu lated to be $8.79 and $7.32 per hour, respectively. The

hours worked in these early entry situations are expected to be of short duration , probably around

four hours . For example, a grower may need to reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots

to pr otect fruits or vegetables from a freeze

.

Finally, the proportion of adolescent workers, out of all farm workers, engaged in these tasks will be very small. 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 engaged

in associated tasks. As shown in the analysis of the costs of providing information to workers engaged in early entry, less than one

- third of all workers are estimated to be in volved in early entry situations each year, on average

. The fraction of workers under 18 is not known. According to information analyzed by USDA (ERS, 2014) , about 27 percent of farm laborers and supervisors are under 25 years of age. Assuming a nearly uniform distribution over 11 years between 14 and 25, we assume about five percent of workers under the age of 25 are 14, 7

. 5 percent are 15 and 16, and nin e percent are 17 years old. Then only about 3

. 4 percent of the

farm labor workforce is under 16 and 4 .5 percent are 16 and 17 years old. Weighting the estimated proportion of workers involved in early entry activities by the estimated proportion of adolescents in the workforce results in estimates of the proportion of adolescents in the

workforce that might engage in early entry activities

. This fraction is then weighted by the

likelihood that a WPS farm worker is employed on an establishment that uses pesticides , 91.385

percent, resulting in the estimated fraction of adolescents engaged in early entry a ctivities our of

all workers: 0.7 percent for 14 and 15 year olds and 0. 8 percent for 16 and 17 year olds

.

Table 3 .3

- 3 2

. Baseline Labor C osts for Early Entry, by Age Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

Baseline, WPS Farm

14

- 15 Year Old $ 7.32 4 0.00 6 $ 0.1 8

16

- 17 Year Old $ 8.79 4 0.00 8 $ 0.2 9 Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 0.4 7

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.4. a

- 2

, for data sources. Numbers may not

sum due to rounding.

EPA estimates a cost of $0.4 7 per worker per year, on average, for labor costs associated with early entry activities by adolescents. This is an average across all workers, recognizing that the age distribution of workers will vary across time and that event requiring early entry are infrequent. If we consider the average large WPS farm that employs 18 workers, the expected annual labor cost for early entry activities by adolescents would be about $ 8.5 0 per year, which

amounts to slightly more than one hour of labor.

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement Minimum age for pesticide handlers. To calculate labor costs under the final rule, the time of

adolescent handlers is replaced by adult labor . For a WPS farm

, the expected cost is estimated to

be $ 21.57 per handler per year ($1 8 .9 5 for a farm with handlers only) and for a CPHE, the cost is $19 3.54 per handler per year

. See Table 3.3

- 33

.

Table 3

. 3

- 33

. Labor C osts for Handlers under Final Rule , by Age Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost
Final Rule, WPS Farm with fieldworkers Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 20.04 50 0.0 2 2 $ 21.57

Final Rule, WPS Farm without fieldworkers Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 20.04 50 0.0 19 $ 18.95

Final Rule, CPHE Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 23.26 640 0.013 $193.54

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.4.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. 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 or older for these limited events. Thus, the req uirement is likely to impose negligible costs86

on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time.

As an upper bound, however , we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. The expected cost is estimated to be $ 0. 84 per worker per year, gi ven an adult wage rate of $14.64 per hour.

Step 3. Estimat e Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs As per the methodology described in Section 3.3.2, w e 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 summing across the various actors

.

RC
r

, i X

t = ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N
a
, i t

a

Table 3.3

- 3 4 present s the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Section 3.2

. Under current requirements, the national cost for adolescent labor, in handler and early entry activities, is estimated to be $ 7.5 million per year.

Table 3.3

- 3 4

. Baseline Labor Costs, Minimum Age

WPS Handler

Farm with

Fieldworkers WPS Handler

Farm without

Fieldworkers CPHE

Handler WPS

Worker

RC R i B t=1

($1,000) cost Age ,a B $ 15.60 $ 13.70 $145.15 $ 0.4 7

South 32,993 13,002 2,076 225,386 $ 1,099

California 12,938 5,099 644 324,709 $ 517

Southwest 7,332 2,889 329 63,032 $ 231 Subtropical 1 5,822 2,295 372 84,042 $ 247

Midwest 46,578 18,356 3,480 255,947 $ 1,602

Northeast 22,858 9,008 1,360 227,297 $ 783 Ohio Valley 47,872 18,866 3,609 294,148 $ 1,666

Texas/Mt West 27,602 10,878 1,761 152,804 $ 906

Northwest 11,644 4,589 687 282,688 $ 476

U.S. 21 5 ,6 38 84,983 14,320 1,910,055 $ 7, 528

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table s B.4. a

- 1 and 2. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Basel ine cost per WPS worker is $0.84 because of state minimum age of 18 for workers to engage in early entry activities.

Table 3.3

- 3 5 present s the expected labor costs under the minimum age requirements

. T he

national cost , replacing adolescent labor in handler and early entry activities with adult labor, is estimated to be $ 1 0 .6 million per year.87

Table 3.3

- 3 5

. Labor Costs under Final Rule

, Minimum Age Restrictions

WPS Handler

Farm with

Fieldworkers WPS Handler

Farm without

Fieldworkers CPHE

Handler WPS

Worker

RC R i F t=1

($1,000) cost Age ,a F $ 21.57 $ 18.95 $193.54 $ 0. 84

South 32,993 13,002 2,076 225,386 $ 1,549

California 12,938 5,099 644 324,709 $ 772

Southwest 7,332 2,889 329 63,032 $ 329 Subtropical 1 5,822 2,295 372 84,042 $ 311

Midwest 46,578 18,356 3,480 255,947 $ 2,240

Northeast 22,858 9,008 1,360 227,297 $ 1,117 Ohio Valley 47,872 18,866 3,609 294,148 $ 2,335

Texas/Mt West 27,602 10,878 1,761 152,804 $ 1,270

Northwest 11,644 4,589 687 282,688 $ 708

U.S. 215,638 84,983 14,320 1,910,055 $ 10,632

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table s B.4. b

- 1 and 2. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. There are no changes over time in the age requirements. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter

3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3

- 3 6 presents the PV of labor costs under the final rule, under the baseline, and the incremental costs of the minimum age requirements. Incremental costs vary substantially across regions due to the number of w orkers in each region.

Table 3.3

- 3 6 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Minimum Age

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South 13,632 9,677 3,955 450

California 6,793 4,545 2,248 256

Southwest 2,898 2,034 865 98 Subtropical 2,741 2,170 571 65

Midwest 19,726 14,111 5,616 639

Northeast 9,834 6,895 2,939 334 Ohio Valley 20,558 14,671 5,887 670

Texas/Mountain West 11,183 7,980 3,203 365

Northwest 6,227 4,189 2,038 232

National 93,593 66,272 27,321 3,110

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of imposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and workers entering a field under a REI is estimated to be $ 27.3 million over ten years, or about $ 3.1 million dollars annually. Agricultural establishments bear slightly more than $2. 4 million in annual

costs while costs to C PHEs is estimated to be about $ 7 0 0,000 annually. G iven an estimated88

1,936 CPHEs, the cost per firm is around $36 0 per year. This cost is likely overstated as it is based on very conservative assumptions regarding the amount of time adolescents are hired to handle pesticides.

EPA estimates that there are 374,791 affected farms implying an annual cost of about $ 8.3 0 per farm. The cost per farm varies considerably across the type of farm, however. Estimated costs range from only about a dollar per year for a small farm that employs field workers , but not handlers. Farms that employ handlers only are expected to bear costs of around seven dollars per year. Large farms with both handlers and fieldworkers are expected to incur additional costs of $10 to $ 30 per year

.

If the number of farmworkers is lower than the number of employees reported in the Census of Agriculture , then EPA estimates that 272,172 farms would be impacted by the minimum age requirements at a total annual cost of about $ 2.9 million annually

. If we use the number of

farmworkers estimate d by USDA, the total cost of the minimum age requirement is estimated to be $2.8 million per year, with an average cost per farm of $ 10 .40 , on average, with large WPS farms incurring additional labor costs of about $ 30 per year, on average, and small WPS f arms incurring incremental costs of less than four dollars per year and about $1.50 per year if the farm does not employ a handler

.

These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults.



### 3.3. 5 Entry

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to p esticide residues. Unlike the training , hazard communication, and notification provisions , which require farm operators, agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to purchase materials, the entry restr ictions do not require specific activities or

materials. Primarily, the revisions provide greater specificity to existing regulations. At most,

t he cos t of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management burden of scheduling

work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts. This burden is not readily quantified and will be discussed qualitatively

.

Entry into treatment area s

. During an application, th e employer must ensure that workers do not

e nt e r into the area being treated ; only appropriately trained and equipped handlers may be in the

area

. Further, the handler must not apply a pesticide in a manner that results in contact to other people.

In the final rule, EPA is establishing an “application exclusion zone” exte nding 25 to 100 feet around the application equipment, depending on the application method. The employer must keep workers out of this zone and the handler must cease application if he or sh e observes someone other than a trained and equipped handler in t he zone.89

Compared to the existing requirements, the application exclusion zone could require an employer to move workers away from the edge of the treatment area as the application equipment passes. This would be a very temporary disruption in any worker activity, however, and would not lead to quantifiable impacts on the agricultural establishment

. On the part of the handler, the requirement to cease the application if someone is seen in the exclusion zone simply clarifies the applicator’s responsibilit y and is unlikely to result in measureable costs.

E ntry into treated areas under REI

. Under certain situations , agricultural employers can send workers into treated areas even during the REI. There is an exception from the prohibition to

enter an area u nder an REI when there is no possibility of contact, as when the person is in an enclosed vehicle. The other exceptions are for short

- term tasks, limited contact tasks, irrigation tasks, and in the case of an agricultural emergency. Most exceptions requi re early entry personnel to wear PPE, do not allow hand labor

, and may include other limitations such as specify ing that contact with treated surfaces must be limited to feet, lower legs, hands and forearms. A person is limited to one hour within the trea ted area under the short

- term exception. Limited contact and irrigation tasks exceptions are limited to eight hours within the treated area. Hand labor activities are allowed in the case of an agricultural emergency, but there is currently

no limit on th e time a worker may be in the treated area.

The final rule will impose a time limit of four hours for workers to be in the treated area in the case of an agricultural emergency, if the pesticide product requires double notification. As explained in Chapt er 3.3.3, a double notification product is one which the Agency has determined to pose sufficient risk to warrant that workers be informed both orally and by posting

that a REI is in effect. This new restriction is not expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. This probability c overs all early entry events, not just agricultural emergencies. 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.

S ince the probability of a problem occurring shortly after a pesticide application is independent of the pest icide, the likelihood of a situation arising after the use of a double notification product

is small. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers wou ld generally be involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers if the time limit is

reached. This will involve some management burden, but is unlikely to result in a significant impact

.

The exception, o f 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 place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, a task that would not be of long duration on a small operation. Note that the limit i s on the amount of time spent in the treated area, meaning that a worker could enter and exit the area multiple times, so long as cumulative

time within the treated area did not exceed four hours.90



### 3.3. 6 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label to avoid unreasonable adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling pesticides or entering fields during a REI . The revisions to the WPS in this category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE. Specifically, the revisions will (1) impose a requirement that handlers must obtain a respirator fit test before handling a pesticide that requires use of a respirator, (2) set performance standards for closed systems that are used in place of some PPE, and (3) require employees working under Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs) to wear PPE if entering a field under

a REI. Costs to establishments may be a combination of additional materials such as additional equipment or mo re frequent changes in filters and a dditional time required for fit testing and record keeping. Most actions or material will be required only of WPS farms that use products that have certain label requirements, but costs are often assumed to affect a lar ge proportion of

WPS farms. This will lead to a substantial overestimation of costs

.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

Respirator fit test. 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. As shown in

Table 3.3

- 3 7 , EPA assumes this operation takes about six minutes of interaction, on average, between the employer and the handler. Pesticides bearing l abel requirements for respirators are not common, but there are a few commonly used pestic ides with the requirement. EPA assumes

that about 60 percent of farms that primarily produce crops, i.e.

, not livestock operations , will use these products

. Accounting for the fact that not all farms will use pesticides every year, EPA

estimates about 40 percent of large farms and large

- small farms will use a product requiring a respirator. A farm is unlikely to need more than one handler when using these products, so for

ease we calculate costs at the farm level

. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. The total estimated cost of a respirator fit test is estimated to be almost $ 18 0, as

detailed in Appendix B . Based on data of fumigant u se from proprietary sources, EPA estimates about 1,000 farms apply fumigant s ap plications on farm, or about 0. 4 percent of farms

.

Table 3.3

- 3 7

. Baseline Costs

, per Large and Large

- Small WPS farm, Respirator F it

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Employer instructs on

proper use $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 hour 0. 390 $ 1.31

Handler receives

instructions on use $ 20.04 /hr 0.10 hour 0. 390 $ 0. 78

Respirator fit test $ 178.59 1 0.00 4 $ 0. 80
Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 2.88

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.6.a

- 3, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.91

EPA does not estimate costs for farms whose operators or immediate family members use a respirator when required by the label, although the handler undoubtedly spends some time familiarizing him or herself with the use of a respirator, since this activity would be unchanged by the fit test requirement.

The cost for CPHE handlers to be fit te sted are part of the baseline since they must be fit tested under OSHA requirements. EPA assumes that CPHEs would mainly purchase fit test kits as there would be several handlers to be tested, as required by OSHA. A new kit may be needed every other year, while replacement tubes for the smoke or odor test would be needed every year. Firm level costs are estimated to be $2 0 1 per year, on average. Assuming half the handlers in a

fir m obtain the testing, the average cost per CPH E handler is estimated t o be $40 per year.

C losed systems that substitute for PPE. Current WPS exceptions allow handlers to reduce the

PPE they wear if they transfer pesticides using a closed system in which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. The existing rule does not clearly describe the specific characteristics of an acceptable closed system, implying that there could be a wide range of systems currently in operation. In practice, however, a closed system is does not

have to be complex. Simply put, it is designed for mixing and loading pesticides in a manner that allows transfer of a pesticide from its original container into a new container, mix tank, or application equipment, while limiting the handler's exposure to the pes ticide. The expected per

farm cost of a system, accounting for systems that are only partially closed, is estimated in Table

3.3

- 3 8 for a large WPS farm

. This is not a regulatory cost; closed systems are not required. Based on a report from the Biologic al and Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of California at Davis (Giles and Billing , 2013), a fully closed system could cost $333.62. Given the components, and EPA’s observations in the field, there are two likely points where a n existi ng pesticide transfer system might not be fully closed: the lack of a tank fitting to transfer the diluted pesticide into the application equipment and the lack of an adaptor for the pesticide concentrate container to transfer it into the mix tank. The tank fitting costs app roximately $20 and is not likely to be the common problem. A system that lacks an adaptor for the pesticide container would cost $149.75, according to Giles and Billing (2013) , but would not be fully

closed. EPA estimates the annual cost for maintenance and replacement as the cost of the whole system, depreciated over ten years at an interest rate of eight percent.

EPA estimates that almost one

- third of large WPS farms use a closed system. We assume that

about half the large WPS farms that primarily pro duce oilseeds and grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses

, will use a closed system. Other farms, such as those that primarily produce livestock or forage crops probably would not have a closed system. Simila r ly, we assume 40 percent of large

- small WPS farms that primarily produce fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses

, will have a closed

system ; thus, we estimate about 7.2 percent of large

- small WPS farms have a closed s ystem

. Finally, farms relying on owner and immediate family members to handle pesticides are allowed to substitute a closed system for certain label

- required PPE through the WPS. We assume that

one

- third of large such farms that primarily produce oilseed s and grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses, will use a closed system, which amounts to 18.8 percent of large farms relying on owner and immediate family members to handle pesticides.92

We conservatively estima te that only 40 percent of farms with closed systems have a fully closed

system

.

Even with a closed system, employers must make PPE available. PPE consist of coveralls, overshoes, and gloves, which cost $27.65 and are expected to last five years, but these assumptions are unimportant as these costs are not expected to change under the revised definition. Finally, each year the employer is anticipated to spend about 15 minutes instructing an employee in the operation of the system. The total expected cost of a closed system is estimated to average, across all large WPS farm $17.75 per year. Across all large

- small WPS farms, the expected annual cost is estimated to be $3.85 and across large farms relying on owner and immediate family members to handle pesticides the expected cost is estimated at $10.09 per year. A CPHE may have two sy stems, but are more likely to have fully closed systems than are private farms. EPA assumes 70 percent of the CPHE systems have all the appropriate fittings and adapters. A CPHE is assumed to train four of the handlers in their operation. Total annual

c osts are estimated to be $128.27. A self

- employed commercial handler may have one system but has no employees to train, implying annual costs of $48.42.

Table 3.3

- 3 8 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Baseline Costs , Closed System

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Fully Closed System 1 $49.72 1 0

. 133 $ 6.59 Partially Closed System 2 $22.32 1 0

. 199 $ 4.44 PPE upkeep 3 $ 6.93 1 0. 331 $ 2.29 Employer provides

instruction $ 33.44 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 2.77

Employee receives

instruction $2 0.04 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 1.66

Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 17.75

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.6.a

- 7, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 A closed system is estimated to cost $ 333.62 ( Giles and Billing , 201 3 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight percent.

2 A system that lacks the adaptor for the pesticide container is estimated to cost $149.75 ( Giles and Billing, 2 013 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight

percent.

3 Total PPE cost is estimated to be $27.65. Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over five years at an interest of eight percent.

PPE e xceptions for e m ployees under the supervision of 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 economical ly damaging level s . Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. There is no particular baseline cost to be calculated in

this situation

.93

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regu latory Requirement

Respirator fit test. The requirement w ill specify the procedures to be used to ensure proper respirator fit, in line with OSHA requirements

. Further, the revisions require that the fitting must occur every year, provide for training the handler to wear a respirator, and require records of the

fit test to be maintained. The costs of this requirement include the time required for handlers to

com plete a medical screening and have a fit test. The actions and materials required are shown

in Table 3.3

- 3 9

. Medical screen ing i s available on line and, since 86 percent of all farms with revenue greater than $500,000 per year have internet access (NASS, 2015), most handlers would be able to complete the survey in about 30 minutes to complete and would receive results in a day or two. Costs are estimated at $27 per person (Affordable Safety Training, 2015). In some cases, the handler must o b tain further medical clearance, which EPA conservatively estimates to be in 25 percent of the cases. The medical exam is assumed to take about 90 minutes, including travel, and cost $72.17 , based on the medicaid reimbursement for a medical evaluation (see

Section 4.5 .4)

. Once cleared, the handler takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. In a follow

- up to comments submitted by several state lead agencies, EPA requested additional information about the cost of fit tests. Oregon reported several sources with fit test cost between $35 and $80; we estimate $50 per handler in this

scenario . It is also possible for employers to order fit tests, ranging in price from $80 to $140, which would last several years with rep lacement smoke or odor tubes. Kits also include training materials and might be a less expensive option. EPA also includes an hour of the employer’s time to manage the process, including setting up the medical screen and arranging or administering the te sting. Accounting for the possibility of a medical examination, the expected cost per handler of the fit test is $ 178.59 . In addition, the employer must collect and store the

documentation.

In the baseline, EPA assumed that about 60 percent of most crop

- producing farms use products requiring a respirator. Under the rule, we assume 75 percent of these farms will have a handler obtain the necessary fit testing in case the need for such a product arises during the year. As a result, we estimate that 53.5 percent of large WPS farms and 13.5 percent of large

- small WPS

farms , approximately 6 2 ,000 handlers per year, will take the respirator fit test. The expected cost

across all large WPS farms of the fit test requirement is calculated to be $ 96.76 , as shown in

Table 3.3

- 34

. For large

- small WPS farms, the average cost is estimated to be $24.35 per year. See Appendix B.94

Table 3.3

- 3 9 . Costs under Final Rule

, Large WPS Farm, Respirator F it T est.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Medical evaluation $ 20.04 /hr 0.5 hour 0. 535 $ 5.36

On

- line evaluation $27.00 1 0. 535 $ 14.45

Time for follow

- up exam 1 $ 20.04 /hr 2 hour 0. 134 $ 5.36

Follow

- up medical exam 1 $72.17 1 0. 134 $ 9.66

Time for fit test, with travel $ 20.04 /hr 1.5 hour 0. 535 $ 16.09

Fit test and training $50.00 1 0. 535 $ 26.76 Employer management $ 33.44 /hr 1 hour 0. 535 $ 17.90

Collect/Store documentation $ 33.44 /hr 0.067 hour 0. 535 $ 1.19

cost r,i, a F $ 96.76

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.6.b

- 1, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 EPA assumes approximately 25 percent of handlers taking the medical evaluation will be referred for a more complete medical examinat ion.

Pesticide handlers on farms that rely on owner and immediate family labor will also be required to obtain a respirator fit test if they use a product requiring a respirator. EPA calculates that 22.6 percent of large family farms and 2.3 percent of l arge

- small such farms, assuming 40 percent of large farms that primarily produce oilseeds and grains and 40 percent of large and large

- small farms that primarily produce fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses, will ch oose to obtain the fit test. For CPHEs, the rule will entail some additional

cost for record

- keeping, increasing the expected cost per handler to $41.06 per year.

C losed systems that substitute for PPE. EPA is a dopting a broad definition, a performance

- based standard, and basic operating standards for closed systems . The operating standards require the handler employer to ensure that written operating instructions for the closed system are available,

that the handler receives training on use of the closed system, and that the system is maintained according to the written instructions. The impacts of changing the definition will be to clarify that there must be a proper fitting into the spray tank and from the pesticide container. Thus,

unde r the rule, all farms using a closed system will have a fully closed system and the associated depreciation costs. The employer or operator must have written operating instructions, which

EPA estimates may take two hours to develop but which would only ha ve to be rewritten about

e v e ry five years. The instructions, however, may have to be replaced every two years due to

wear and tear . Other costs are the same as in the baseline, as shown in Table 3.3

- 40 . EPA

calculates the cost f

or a large WPS farm to be $ 27.63 per year, on average, across all large WPS

farms.95

Table 3.3

- 40 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Costs under Final Rule , Closed System

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Fully Closed System 1 $49.72 1 0. 331 $ 16.47 PPE upkeep 3 $ 6.93 1 0. 331 $ 2.29 Write operating instructions $ 33.44 /hour 2 0. 066 $ 4.43 Operating instructions $ 0.02/sheet 1 0. 166 $ 0.0 0 Employer provides instruction $ 33.44 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 2.77 Employee receives instruction $ 20.04 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 1.66
Expected Cost cost r,i, a F $ 27.63

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.6.b

- 7, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 A closed system is estimated to cost $333.62 ( Giles and Billing, 2013 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight percent.

2 A system that lacks the adaptor for the pesticide container is estimated to cost $149.75 ( Giles and Billing, 2013 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight

percent.

3 Total PPE cost is estimated to be $27.65. Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over five years at an interest of eight percent.

Average costs under the revised rule are estimated to be lower for other farms because they are less likely to use closed systems. EPA estimates the cost under the revised rule to be $5.99 per year, on average, for large

- small WPS farms, and $15.71 per year for large farms relying on

owner and immediate family labor, given only 7.2 percent of the former and 18.8 percent of the latter are likely to use a closed system. The cost for CPHEs and self

- employed commercial handlers, including the written operating instructions, is estimated to be $157. 80 per year and $69.72 per year, respectively.

PPE e xceptions for employees under the supervision of CCAs. The final rule will not allow non

certified employees of CCAs to forego the labeled use of PPE if they enter a field under a REI.

The impacts of e liminating 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

. Moreover, it would be rare that scouting activities, particularly those conducted by someone not certified, would

occur in fields under a REI.

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs As per the methodology described in Section 3.3.2, w e estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of es tablishments or workers in each region that are affected by the requirements and summing across the various actors

.

RC
r

, i X

t = ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N
a
, i t

a

As with the notification requirements, we examine the impacts of the respirator fit requirements and the new definition for closed systems separately before summing the costs to determine the96

impacts of the PPE component as a whole. Table 3.3

- 41 present s the baseline costs for the existing respirator requirements for WPS farms , where the number of actors is presented in

Section 3.2

. As noted above, EPA has not estimated baseline costs for farms relying on owner and immediate family labor. California and Washington have higher baseline costs for WPS handlers because they require fit testing for all handlers working with products requiring a respirator. C urrent ly

, EPA estimates the national cost for compliance with respirator requirements to be $ 1.8 millio n per year for WPS farms

.

Table 3.3

- 41

. Baseline Costs, Respirator Fit Requirement, WPS Farms 1

Large WPS Farm Large

- Small WPS

Farm WPS Farm

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost Respirator

,a B $ 2.88 $ 2.88 Region N i a t South 12,153 21,688 $ 98

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 22 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 17

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 138

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 68 Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 142

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 82
California, Northwest

cost Respirator

,a B $ 95.57 $ 24.05

California 4,766 8,505 $ 660

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 594

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $1,819

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.6.a

- 3 and 4. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Baseline costs are assumed to be zero for farms relying on owner and immediate family labor.

The costs under the revised respirator fit requirements are presented in Table 3.3

- 42 for WPS and

farms relying on owner and immediate family labor. EPA estimates that the new requirements will cost these establishments about $11.1 million and $1.3 millio n per year, respectively. This is an estimated increase of $9.3 million per year for WPS farms, which corresponds to an average cost per farm of $42 per year, given over 220,000 farms potentially affected. Impacts are likely to be concentrated in about 6 2,000 farms, however, implying an average cost per farm of around $180 per year for those impacted. Similarly, across 132,000 large and large

- small farms relying on owner and immediate family labor the average incremental cost is about nine dollars per fa rm. There are probably only around 7,000 such farms that will use products requiring a respirator, however, meaning costs are again about $180 per year for an impacted farm. However, because pest pressure varies from year to year and farmers may rotate t he products they use to manage pesticide resistance, the same farms may not use products requiring respirators every year and therefore may not obtain a fit test every year.97

Table 3.3

- 42

. Costs under Final Rule

, Respirator Fit Requirement, WPS Farms and Farms relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS

Farm Large

Small WPS

Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) Large

Farm,

Owner

Labor Large

- Small

Farm,

Owner

Labor Farm,

Owner

Labor

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost Respirator

,a F $ 96.76 $ 24.35 $ 40.89 $ 4.18 Region N i a t N i a t South 12,153 21,688 $ 1,704 2,899 17,740 $ 193

California 4,766 8,505 $ 668 1,137 6,957 $ 76

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 379 644 3,942 $ 43 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 301 512 3,131 $ 34

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 2,406 4,093 25,045 $ 272

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 1,181 2,009 12,291 $ 134 Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 2,473 4,207 25,741 $ 280

Texas/Mt

West 10,168 18,144 $ 1,426 2,425 14,842 $ 161

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 601 1,023 6,261 $ 68

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $11,138 18,949 115,950 $ 1,260

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table B.6.b

- 1. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 4 3 presents the regional and national baseline cost for CPHEs regarding respirators and closed systems. EPA estimates that CPHEs are currently spending about $96 2 ,000 per year for respirator fit testing and training and about $2.2 million to purchase and maintain closed

systems. Again, we note that closed systems are not a requirement under the WPS; a closed system provides the user with an exc eption to some label

- required PPE.

Table 3.3

- 4 3

. Baseline Costs, PPE Requirements, CPHEs
Respirator Fit Closed Systems

CPHE CPHE

Handler CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) CPHE CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost PPE ,a B $201.44 $39.97 $128.27 Region N i a t N i a t South 281 2,076 $ 140 281 $ 144

California 1 87 644 $ 43 87 $ 155

Southwest 45 329 $ 22 45 $ 57 Subtropical 50 372 $ 25 50 $ 31

Midwest 470 3,480 $ 234 470 $ 885

Northeast 184 1,360 $ 91 184 $ 121 Ohio Valley 488 3,609 $ 243 488 $ 340

Texas/Mt West 238 1,761 $ 118 238 $ 173

Northwest 93 687 $ 46 93 $ 318

U.S. 1,936 14,320 $ 962 1,936 $2,224

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table B.6.a

- 5, 6, and 8. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Baseline costs for a closed system in California estimated to be $144.71. See Appendix B, Table

B.6.a

- 7.98

Table 3.3

- 44 presents CPHE costs for respirators and closed systems under the final rule. Respirator fit testing and training is estimated to cost $978,000 per year, nationally, and increase

of abo ut $16,000 over the baseline. The incremental cost to CPHEs is primarily due to new recordkeeping requirements and are expected to cost about eight dollars per year per firm. Under the new definition of closed systems, CPHEs are estimated to incur an inc remental cost of about $894,000 per year or about $21 per firm per year.

Table 3.3

- 44

. Costs under Final Rule

, PPE Requirements, CPHEs
Respirator Fit Closed Systems

CPHE CPHE

Handler CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) CPHE CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost PPE ,a F $201.44 $41.06 $157.80 Region N i a t N i a t South 281 2,076 $ 142 281 $ 200

California 87 644 $ 44 87 $ 189

Southwest 45 329 $ 22 45 $ 82 Subtropical 50 372 $ 25 50 $ 43

Midwest 470 3,480 $ 238 470 $1,261

Northeast 184 1,360 $ 93 184 $ 169

Ohio Valley 488 3,609 $ 246 488 $ 476

Texas/Mt West 238 1,761 $ 120 238 $ 243

Northwest 93 687 $ 47 93 $ 455

U.S. 1,936 14,320 $ 978 1,936 $3,118

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table B.6.b

- 2, 3, and 7. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Baseline costs for WPS and farms relying on owner and immediate family labor that operate a closed system are presented in Table 3.3

- 45. Nationally, costs are estimated to be almost $2.0 million and $207,000 per year for WPS farms and other farms, respect ively.

Table 3.3

- 45

. Baseline Costs, Closed System Definition, WPS and Farms relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farms

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) Large Farm,

Owner Labor Farms,

Owner Labor

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost ClosedSystem

,a B $ 17.75 $ 3.85 $ 10.72

Region N i a t N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 299 2,899 $ 31

California 4,766 8,505 $ 153 1,137 $ 16

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 66 644 $ 7 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 53 512 $ 5

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 422 4,093 $ 44

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 207 2,009 $ 22 Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 434 4,207 $ 45

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 250 2,425 $ 26

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 106 1,023 $ 11

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $1,991 18,949 $ 207

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table B.6.a

- 7. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.99 1 Baseline costs for a closed system in California estimated to average $23.19 for large WPS farms, $5.03 for large

- small WPS farms, and $13.19 for large farms relying on owner and immedi ate family labor. See Appendix B, Table B.6.a

- 9.

Table 3.3

- 46 presents the estimated costs under the final rule, which revises the definition of a closed system. The cost for WPS farms is estimated to be $3.0 million per year nationally, an

increase o f almost $1.1 million per year over the baseline. The average across all large and large

- small WPS farms is less than five dollars per year, but only about 36,500 farms will be impacted by the change in the final rule. The average cost across affected fa rms is under $30 per year. The incremental cost to farms relying on owner and immediate family labor is estimated to be $103,000 per year, which is also about $30 per year for the estimated 3,600 such farms using closed systems.

Table 3.3

- 46

. Costs unde r Final Rule

, Closed System Definition, WPS and Farms relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farms

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) Large Farm,

Owner Labor Farms,

Owner Labor

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost ClosedSystem

,a F $ 27.63 $ 5.99 $ 16.34

Region N i a t N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 466 2,899 $ 47

California 4,766 8,505 $ 183 1,137 $ 19

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 103 644 $ 11 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 82 512 $ 8

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 657 4,093 $ 67

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 323 2,009 $ 33 Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 676 4,207 $ 69

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 390 2,425 $ 40

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 164 1,023 $ 17

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $3,044 18,949 $ 310

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Table B.6.b

- 4. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3

- 4 7 sums the baseline costs, by actor for each requirement and then across actors for the region. EPA estimates baseline costs at $7.2 million for the relevant PPE requirements in the

WPS.

Table 3.3

- 47

. Bas eline Costs, PPE Requirements, Total

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) Farms, Owner

Labor

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) CPHEs

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) Total

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 397 $ 31 $ 284 $ 712

N a,California $ 813 $ 16 $ 198 $ 1,027

N a,Southwest $ 88 $ 7 $ 80 $ 175

N a,Subtropical $ 70 $ 5 $ 56 $131

N a,Midwest $ 560 $ 44 $1,118 $ 1,722

N a,Northeast $ 275 $ 22 $ 212 $ 509100

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) Farms, Owner

Labor

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) CPHEs

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000) Total

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)

N a,Ohio Valley $ 576 $ 45 $ 582 $ 1,203

N a,Texas $ 332 $ 22 $ 291 $ 649

N a,Northwest $ 700 $ 11 $ 364 $ 1,075

U.S. $3,811 $ 207 $3,186 $ 7,203

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 41, 43 and 45. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The costs under the final rule are summed in Table 3.3

- 48. EPA estimates costs at $19.8 million, an increase of $12.6 million. Over $10.3 million of the incremental costs are borne by WPS farms and $1.4 million are borne by farms relying on owner and immediate family labor, mostly for respirator fit testing. CPHEs bear about $910,000 of the incremental cost.

Table 3.3

- 48 . Costs under Final Rule

, PPE Req uirements, Total

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) Farms, Owner

Labor

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) CPHEs

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000) Total

RC Ri F 1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 2,170 $ 240 $ 342 $ 2,752

N a,California $ 851 $ 94 $ 233 $ 1,178

N a,Southwest $ 482 $ 53 $ 104 $ 640

N a,Subtropical $ 383 $ 42 $ 69 $ 494

N a,Midwest $ 3,063 $ 333 $ 1,499 $ 4,901

N a,Northeast $ 1,503 $ 166 $ 262 $ 1,932

N a,Ohio Valley $ 3,148 $ 348 $722 $ 4,219

N a,Texas $ 1,815 $ 201 $ 363 $ 2,379

N a,Northwest $ 766 $ 85 $ 502 $ 1,353

U.S. $14,182 $ 1,570 $ 4,095 $19,847

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3

- 42, 44 and 46. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. There are no changes over time in the PPE requirements. While there are some potential capital expenses in purchasing new parts for a closed system, we captured that by considering the cost of depreciation in the annual budget. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3

- 4 9 presents the PV of costs to meet PPE requirements under the final rule, under the baseline, as well as the incremental costs. Incremental costs vary substantially across regions

due to the number of farms, CPHEs, and handlers in each region as well as state baselines

. The

incremental cost is low in California because the state baseline is near or even exceeds the final federal requirements.101

Table 3.3

- 4 9 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , PPE

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South $ 24,1 8 7 $ 6,260 $ 17,928 $ 2,040

California $ 10,34 9 $ 9,0 25 $ 1,324 $ 151

Southwest $ 5,621 $ 1,533 $ 4,085 $ 465 Subtropical $ 4,3 41 $ 1,156 $ 3,185 $ 362

Midwest $ 43,0 69 $ 15,142 $ 27,927 $ 3,179

Northeast $ 16,9 77 $ 4,474 $ 12,503 $ 1,423 Ohio Valley $ 37,0 79 $ 10,578 $ 26,502 $ 3,016

Texas/Mountain West $ 20, 909 $ 5,710 $ 15,199 $ 1,730

Northwest $ 11,88 6 $ 9,444 $ 2,442 $ 278

National $174, 419 $ 63,325 $111,094 $ 12,6 44
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revising PPE requirements is estimated to be $1 11 million

over ten years , or about $1 2.6 million annually. Agricultural establishmen ts bear approximately $1 1.7 million in annual costs while costs to CPHEs is estimated to be about $ 910 ,000 annually.

T he incremental cost per CPHE, including the self

- employed commercial handlers, is estimated

to be less $ 40 per year and primarily results from upgrades to existing closed systems

.

EPA estimates that as many as 109,000 farms, including farms relying on owner and immediate family labor, could be affected by these provisions, implying an average annual cost of about $110 per farm and ranging from about $30 per farm per year up to $210 per year for a farm that upgrades a closed system and has a handler undergoing a respirator fit test. The average cost per farm also varies considerably across regions, depending on current state requirements.

These cost estimates are no t sensitive to our assumptions about the number of farms hiring field

workers and the total number of field workers . All scenarios assume the same number of farms employing handlers.



### 3.3. 7 Decontamination Supplies

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of exposure to pesticides. EPA is finalizing two requirements that better define expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees to mitigate exposures if they occur. The first requires employers to provide three gallons of wash water per worker if the worker is engaged in tasks in a field under a REI. The second requires employers to provide six gallons of water and a m eans for rinsing the eyes for handlers who are mixing or loading a pesticide when some kind of eye protection is needed. Costs to establishments stem
from additional materials needed to meet the requirements

.102

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

Quantity of water available for early entry events. F or tasks in treated areas during a REI , the

WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and the “How to Comply”

manual ( EPA, 2006 ) indicates that one gallon per worker would be considered suff icient. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. (NASS, 201 4a ), a gallon of water would cost about $0.00 4

. Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs on an esta blishment to be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in the activity. Since about 90 percent of workers are employed on farms that used pesticides in 2012, EPA calculates that 18.2 percent of workers may be involved in early entry activities. This implies baseline costs of less

than $0.001 per worker, on average

.

Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements specify that handlers

must have at least one pint of water available w hen working with pesticides for which the label requires eye protection. Handlers must be provided a water bottle that allows them to rinse in and around the eyes if there is an exposure to the eye

. A water bottle costs $3.65 at Gempler’s

on

- line store ( 2014). G iven that some commonly used herbicide products, such as 2,4

- D, and fungicide product s , such as chlorothalonil, have label requirements for eye protection , EPA estimates that 84.4 percent of large farms and 63.4 percent of large

- small farms will u se a pesticide that requires eye protection. This includes farms whose primary production includes oilseeds and grains, cotton, tobacco, fruits

, and vegetables, as well as nurseries and greenhouses. We also include large farms producing cattle, hogs, she ep, and goats as well as dairy. Bottles are assumed to last about four years implying that about 21.1 percent of large farms and nearly 16 percent of large and large

- small farms will purchase a water bottle every year. The cost per farm

is calculated to be $0.77 per year for large farms , as shown in Table 3.3

- 5 0 . EPA assumes that the farm will have four occasions per year, if pesticides are applied, where the requirement is triggered, but water costs are negligible. The expected cost per large

- small farm is calculated to

be $0.58, averaging across all farms , given the lower percentage of farms likely to be subject to the requirement . CPHEs are calculated to spend about $0.93 per handler per year, assuming that

half t he handlers need a water bottle and the bottles must be replaced every two years.

Table 3.3

- 5 0 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Baseline Cost , Handler Eye Flushing

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Water bottle $ 3.65 1 0.211 $ 0.77

Water $0.004/gal 0.125 3.1 $ 0.00
Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 0.77

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.7.a

- 2, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.103

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement

Quantity of water available for early entry events. F or tasks in treated areas during a REI , the

WPS will require three gallons of water be available for decontamination in early entry situations. With all other par ameters the same as in the baseline, the cost per worker triples, to about $0.002 per worker, on average.

Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. The final rule require s there to be a

sustained flow of water to allow for about 15 minutes of eyeflush

. This requirement would be satisfied in locations with running water or when using a large storage tank with flow controls, assuming the water is of sufficient quality and there is some control of the flow

. If mixing and loading is done at t he field, the employer will need to supply at le a s t six g all ons and a container that would provide a steady flow of water for about 15 minutes

. Safety supply stores offer five

gallon dispenser s designed for quick refilling in cases where eye flushing is n eeded for about $21 (Gempler’s, 2015). A dispenser is assumed to last about eight years, so the frequency or probability of p urchase is half that of a water bottle. See Table 3.3

- 51 . Wat er costs, assuming six gallons approximately three times per year, amount to about $0.07

. The water pint bottle will remain part of the handler’s gear.

Table 3.3

- 51

. Cost under Final Rule Per

- Large WPS Farm, Handler Eye Flushing

.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual frequency freq ( j | i ) cost

Water dispenser $ 20.65 1 0.106 $ 2.18

Water bottle $ 3.65 1 0.211 $ 0.77

Water $0.004/gal 6 3.1 $ 0.07
Expected Cost cost r,i, a F $ 3.02

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.7.b

- 2, for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The cost per large

- small farm is calculated in a similar manner, resulting in an annual expected cost of $1.91 . The expected cost per CPHE handler, assuming a dispenser lasts five years, is $ 3.81 per year.

Step 3. Estimate Regiona l Level Baseline and Compliance Costs As per the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.2, w e 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 requirem ents and summing across the various actors

.

RC
r

, i X

t = ∑ cost r

, a X

t × N
a
, i t

a

Table 3.3

- 52 present s the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Chapter 3.2

. T he current national cost for decontamination water and materials to a ddress potential104

emergencies during early entry events or where eye protection is estimated to be $ 158,000 per

year.

Table 3.3

- 52

. Baseline Costs, Decontamination Supplies

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Worker CPHE

Handler RC R i B t=1

($1,000) cost Decon ,a B $ 0.77 $ 0.58 $ 0.001 $ 0.93

South 12,153 21,688 225,386 2,076 $ 24.0

California 4,766 8,505 324,709 644 $ 9.4

Southwest 2,701 4,820 63,032 329 $ 5.2 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 84,042 372 $ 4.3

Midwest 17,158 30,619 255,947 3,480 $ 34.4

Northeast 8,420 15,026 227,297 1,360 $ 16.6 Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 294,148 3,609 $ 35.4

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 152,804 1,761 $ 20.1

Northwest 4,289 7,655 282,688 687 $ 8.6

U.S. 79,434 141,753 1,910,055 14,320 $ 158.1

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.7.a

- 1 to 3. Numbers may not sum due to rounding

.

Table 3.3

- 53 presents the costs under the final rule revisions. EPA estimates the cost of providing decontamination supplies for emergency eye wash and for workers engaged in

acti vities in fields under a REI to be $ 570 ,000 per year.

Table 3.3

- 53

. Costs under Final Rule

, Decontamination Supplies

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Worker CPHE

Handler RC R i F t=1

($1,000) cost Decon ,a F $ 3.02 $ 1.91 $ 0.002 $ 3.81

South 12,153 21,688 225,386 2,076 $ 86. 6

California 4,766 8,505 324,709 644 $ 33.8

Southwest 2,701 4,820 63,032 329 $ 18.8 Subtropical 2,145 3,827 84,042 372 $ 15.4

Midwest 17,158 30,619 255,947 3,480 $124.3

Northeast 8,420 15,026 227,297 1,360 $ 59.9

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 294,148 3,609 $ 127.9

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 152,804 1,761 $ 72.5

Northwest 4,289 7,655 282,688 687 $ 30.8

U.S. 79,434 141,753 1,910,055 14,320 $ 570.1

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.7.b

- 1 to 3. Numbers may not sum due to rounding

.

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. There are no changes over time in the PPE requirements. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Ch apter
3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3

- 5 4 presents the PV of costs incurred to provide decontamination materials for handler eye flush and workers engaged in early entry activities under the fi nal rule, under the baseline, as105

well as the incremental costs. V ar iations in costs across regions are due to the differing number of farms, workers , and CPHE handlers in each region.

Table 3.3

- 5 4 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs

, Decontamination Supplies

. Region PV( RC o F i ) PV( RC o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC ($1,000)

South $ 762 $ 211 $ 550.4 $ 62.6

California $ 297 $ 83 $ 214.4 $ 24.4

Southwest $ 165 $ 46 $ 119.1 $ 13.6 Subtropical $ 135 $ 38 $ 97.8 $ 11.1

Midwest $ 1,093 $ 302 $ 790.3 $ 89.9

Northeast $ 526 $ 146 $ 380.2 $ 43.3 Ohio Valley $ 1,125 $ 311 $ 813.4 $ 92.6

Texas/Mountain West $ 637 $ 177 $ 460.7 $ 52.4

Northwest $ 271 $ 75 $ 195.6 $ 22.3

National $5,012 $ 1,390 $3,6 22 $412.2

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revising the decontamination supply requirements is estimated to be $ 3.6 million over ten years, or about $ 41 2,000 annually. About $ 371 ,000 of

costs accrue to WPS farms. A ll 375,000 WPS farms may be affected by the decontamination requirements at some point, implying an annual cost per farm of about one dollar . Large WPS

fa rms will likely incur incremental costs of about $ 2

. 6 0 per year to provide decontamination supplies to both workers and handlers, while the cost to small WPS farms will average around $0. 8 0 per year. The cost for an average CPHE, employing about seven han dlers, is estimated to be about $ 2 1. 3 0 per year

.

The estimated incremental costs associated with the final decontamination supply requirements depend primarily on the cost of the eyeflush requirement. Depending on the assumptions as to

the number of farm s hiring field workers and the number of field workers, the estimated incremental cost ranges from $411,000 to $413,000 per year.



### 3.3. 8 Total Cost of Final Rule

T he total cost of the final rule can be estimated by summing the costs of the seven components evaluated in the previous sections. Table 3.3

- 55 presents the PV of the baseline and final regulatory costs , assuming all elements are implemented simultaneously and given EPA’s primary estimate of the number of affected entities and employees . Nationally, the final rule is

es timated to increase the cost of complying with the W orker P rotection S tandard by $ 5 8 7 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three percent discount rate and assuming all requirements are implemented simultaneously . The annual incremental cost under this assumption is

estimated to be about $ 6 6.9 million. If implementation of all the training requirements is delayed for two years after other components

, the 10

- year accumulated cost is estimated to be $ 5 28 million and the annual incremental cos t is estimated to be about $ 60.2 million. Only the106

additional training material will be delayed to allow for development and dissemination, so the true cost of the rule will likely be between these two bounds

. W ith a seven percent discount rate,

the annual incremental cost of the final regulations is estimated to be between $ 5 6 .2 and $ 6 6.9

million. Because costs recur annually, the choice of discount rate does not change the estimates, except when some requireme nts are delayed.

Table 3.3

- 55 . PV of Final Rule and Baseline Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total)

Region RC o F i RC o B i RIC o i Annual IC ($1,000)

South $ 205,631 $ 113,463 $ 9 2,168 $ 10,490

California $ 120,755 $ 96,954 $ 2 3,801 $ 2,709

Southwest $ 47,844 $ 26,748 $ 21,097 $ 2,401 Subtropical $ 43,789 $ 27,138 $ 16,651 $ 1,895

Midwest $ 289,902 $ 171,279 $ 118,623 $ 13,501

Northeast $ 154,446 $ 86,584 $ 67,862 $ 7,724 Ohio Valley $ 296,042 $ 161,077 $ 134,965 $ 15,361

Texas/Mountain

West $ 166,764 $ 93,386 $ 73,378 $ 8,352

Northwest $ 109,868 $ 71,059 $ 38,809 $ 4,417

U.S. $1, 435,041 $ 847,686 $ 587,355 $ 66,850

S ource: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

As noted in Section 3.2.3, EPA has conservatively included nearly all employees reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture in this analysis as if they are all engaged in hand labor activities and/or handling pesticides and are covered by the WPS

, i.e. , nearly 2.0 million workers and/or

handlers on almost 375,000 agricultural establishments . Using more narrow assumptions as to the farms and employees covered would result in an estimate of total costs between $4 1.5 million and $45. 8 million per year. The lower bound estimate s are based on 272,000 farms emp loying

1.1 million farm workers

, as estimated by USDA (ERS, 2014) , and about 248,000 pesticide

handlers . If all crop

- producing farms that hire labor and all their employees are covered by the

WPS , 2.4 million workers and/or handlers on 466,000 establishme nts , the incremental cost of the

final revisions to the WPS is estimated to be between $7 2 .6 and $81.0 million per year.

Figure 3.3

- 1 shows the contribution of the seven categories of the final rule to the total

incremental cost , using the primary estimat e of $6 6.9 million per year . The informational regulations, i.e. , the t raining , hazard communication, and notification requirements, make up

almost three

- fourths of the total incremental costs. The protective regulations (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of the remaining cost , with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one

- fifth of the total incremental cost. The decontamination supply requirements , which are focused on mitigation in the event of an incident contribute less

than one percent of the cost. Shares are roughly similar across all assumptions about farm

worker numbers. Given the upper bound assumptions of establishments and employees affected, the information requirements comprise about 80 percent of the total cost while these requirements account for about two

- thirds of the costs if the lower bound assumptions are used. Notification costs decrease most rapidly if the number of farms and farm workers is lower than assumed; PPE costs do not vary ac ross the different assumptions.107

Figure 3.3

- 1

. Contribution of components of the final W orker P rotection S tandard to

total annualized incremental cost

, $ 6 6.9 million

.

Average per

- entity costs are presented in Table 3.3

- 5 6 . 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 workers and handlers given the size of the operation and the region . Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations , but often only slightly. The cost estimates assume that all requirements become effective simultaneously

, which overstates the expected cost of the final rule . Incremental costs for large WPS farms with

farmworke rs are expected to average just over $ 350 per year, ranging from an additional $ 3 07 per year in the Texas/Mountain West region to $ 5 14 per year in the Northwest where there is a high average number of workers per farm. California also has a high average n umber of workers per farm, but current regulations imply a higher baseline cost and lower incremental cost . Small farms are likely to face impacts of nearly $1 40 per year, on average, ranging from less than $ 1 00 per year in California to $1 5 9 per year in the Northwest where the number of workers per farm is above average . In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. The incremental cost for farms that have handlers but not workers engaged in hand labor

activities is estim ated to be less than half that of similarly sized farms with field workers with the incremental cost for large farms employing handlers only estimated to be $1 70 per year, on average, and for small farms employing handlers only estimated at $ 71 per year, o n average

.



## Training

45% HazCom

14%

Notification

17%

Age

5% Entry

0% PPE

19% Supply

0% 

## Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$23.2

- 29.9 million

$11.5 million

$3.1 million $12.6 million $412,000 $9.3 million108

Table 3.3

- 5 6 . A verage Worker Per

- Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) Region Large WPS Farm

with farm workers Small WPS Farm

with farm workers

workers/farm EIC o i workers/farm EIC o i South 13.8 $ 3 5 4 2.7 $ 14 7

California 50.8 $ 3 08 9.9 $ 88

Southwest 17.4 $ 37 8 3.4 $ 1 4 9 Subtropical 29.2 $ 4 34 5.7 $ 1 3 9

Midwest 11.1 $ 3 22 2.2 $ 1 31

Northeast 20.1 $ 40 3 3.9 $ 15 3 Ohio Valley 12.4 $ 3 5 4 2.4 $ 1 4 9

Texas/Mountain

West 11.2 $ 3 07 2.2 $ 1 4 9

Northwest 49.1 $ 5 1 4 9.6 $ 1 5 9

U.S. 17.9 $ 35 5 3.5 $ 1 42

Source: EPA estimates.

Upper bound assumptions about the number of establishments and workers lead to lower average

per

- farm costs. Conversely, estimates based on the lower bound assumptions focus on fewer

establishments that have more workers and are illustrative of farms that will likely bear higher

than

- average costs. There are about 13,000 large establishments averaging almost 50 workers per entity ; the estimated incremental cost for these establishments is $659 per year. Simi larly, there are over 76,000 small WPS farms averaging 5 workers per entity for which EPA estimates incremental costs between $112 and $209 per year.

The incremental cost to CPHEs is estimated to be between $530 and $565 per year. The

incremental cost fo r self

- employed commercial handlers is only about $210 to $225 per year and is largely a function of the revised definition for closed systems

. Costs to farms relying on owner and immediate family labor also result from revisions to the definition of clos ed systems and the requirements for respirator fit testing and are estimated to be less than $50 per year, on average. There is wide variability in impacts, however, with many such farms facing little or no impacts and others, which use pesticide products requiring a respirator, facing costs of $180 per year, at least in years that respirators are used.

A final way to consider the costs of the final revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is the cost per employee covered by the regulations since they are the primary beneficiaries of the added protections. Considering the 1.9 million farm workers, the additional 85,000 handlers on farms, and 14,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the average cost to b e between $ 29.90 and $3 3.30 per year per employee, including handlers employed at CPHEs. This measure does not consider the farm operators and their immediate family members who will also benefit from greater protections stemming from properly fitting res pirators and improved closed systems.

All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the final requirements. EPA has made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state109

regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline

and the final rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While assumptions a ttemp t to re present 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.



### 3. 4 Impact on Jobs and Employment

EPA also calculate s the per

- employee incremental cost of the final requirements as the difference

between the cost in the baseline and under the final rule . The incremental cost per WPS farm

wo rker ( i.e.

, not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is estimated to be about $ 5

. 3 0 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on employment decisions

. The estimated incremental cost ranges from $5.10 per year, given the upper bound estimate of 1.9 million workers, to $6.20 per year, using EPA’s lower bound estimate of 1.2 million workers. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training requirements, which are expected to cost about $ 6 .10 per year. This is offset by a r eduction in the per

- worker cost of the notification requirements of $ 1

. 3 0 per year as greater emphasis is placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0. 4 0 per year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0. 01 per year. Table 3 .4

- 1 presents this information.

Table 3 .4

- 1 . Annualized Per

- Employee Cost of Final Requirements Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler Training $ 6.08 $14. 32 $17. 05

Hazard Communication $ 0. 13 $ 0. 13 $ 0.00

Notification

- $ 1. 31 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Age $ 0. 3 5 $ 5.77 $48.74
Entry $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

PPE $ 0.00 $ 29.81 $ 1.10 Supply $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.90

Total $ 5. 26 $ 50.04 $ 69. 79

Source: EPA estimates.

The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but i s still relatively

minor. T raining requirements add about $1 4

. 30 per year to employment costs, but t he main driver is the PPE category at $ 29.80 per year as a result of the requirement for fit testing respirators. This cost is estimated across all handlers. The age restriction may add about $ 5. 8 0 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 a round $ 50 per year, assuming the average baseline costs and EPA’s primary estimate of the number of

establishments and handlers

. EPA estimates the incremental cost of employing a handler to range from $40.23 per year, using the upper bound estimates of nu mbers, to $123.87 per year, using the lower bound estimate of establishments and handlers. We estimate that the cost to agricultural employers of a handler is $ 20.04 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight110

hours per day and assuming only 150 d ays of employment, a handler would cost about $2 4 ,000 per year. An increase in cost of $ 5 0 to $125 per year represents about 0. 2 to 0.5 percent of the

total cost of a handler , a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact on jobs.

The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $ 70 per year

. The marginal cost to a CPHE is primarily a result of the minimum age requirements, which is largely driven by assumptions about the time adolescents are employed in handling agricult ural pesticides

. PPE costs per handler are very low since fit testing for respirators is already an OSHA requirement.



### 3. 5 Small Business Impacts

This section presents estimates of the impact the final changes to the WPS rule may have on small entities by examining the relationship between the incremental cost and revenue for small WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions.

Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 3.5 .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 final requirements as well as comments received on the proposed revisions . Based on th is analysis, EPA concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entiti es, including businesses, non

- profit organizations, and governments.

W hen 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

e ffects on significantly impacted small entities.

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual incremental compl iance 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 an nual sales, EPA considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if

a s ubstantial 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;

 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.111

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a

substanti al 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

far ms; 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. In

Section 3.5 .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 final requirements as well as a two

year delayed implementation of the training requirements

.

We focus on WPS farms because farms relying on owner and immediate family labor face lower impacts for each size category. EPA also estimates that small CPHEs will not face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The estimated cost increase acro ss all CPHEs, which average over seven handlers, is between $530 and $565 per year. The average revenue for small CPHEs, according to publicly available data, is $1.4 million per year (D&B, 2014), implying impacts of less than 0.05 percent. Moreover, sma ll CPHEs average four employees and would have lower incremental costs than across all CPHEs. Assuming all four employees of small CPHEs are handlers, expected incremental cost per small CPHE is estimated to be $215 to $235 per year.
Thus, even firms wit h incomes well below average would not be expected to incur impacts in excess of one percent of annual revenue.



### 3.5 .1 Industry Profile

EPA uses data from the 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014 and 2008) to identify the number of small WPS fa rms 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 characteris tics, 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 cr ops, greenhouse s, and nurseries). Results of this special tabulation were used to estimate similar profiles using publicly available data from the 2012 Census. See Appendix A. Crop producing

farms a re separated into two main size classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined as those with annual gross reve nue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 million in annual sales. Table 3.5

- 1 presents the estimated number of farms, by type, a nd the proportion of the total that are small farms. The WPS applies112

to all crop

- producing farms that use pesticides, although family labor is exempt from most provisions. About 40 percent of all farms produce crops and use pesticides and

, proportionally,

there are fewer small farms , by SBA standards, than over all types of farms. For purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that most crop

- producing farms that hire labor ( i.e. , do not rely solely on family labor) are subject to the WPS. W e e xc lude farms with less than $100,000 in agricultural production and whose primary production is livestock as these farms are unlikely to hire employees to handle pesticides or engage in hand labor activities related to crop production

. There fore, EPA esti mates that there are almost 375,000 farms covered by the WPS. These farms tend to be larger, in terms of revenue, than all farms , with less than 80 percent classified as small by the SBA . In fact, only about 8 0 percent of these farms use pesticides, at l east in 2012, and must meet WPS requirements. This subset of farms tend to have still higher revenues than do other types of farms , with about three

- fourths classified as small by SBA standards

.

Table 3.5

- 1

. F arms, by type and size , and average number o f employees

.

Farm Type Number of

Farms Small Farms 1

(%) Employees Workers &

Handlers

All Farms 2,109,303 95% 2,736,417 1,995,037 All Crop Farms using pesticides 871,935 89% 2,408,452 1,995,037

Crop Farms, no hired

labor 517,715 96% 0 0

WPS Farms 2 374,794 79% 1,995,037 1,995,037

WPS Farms 2 using pesticides 304,106 76% 1,813,476 1,813,476

Source: EPA estimates based on 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014 ) and Special tabulation,

2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008).

1 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue and feedlots with less than $2.5 million in revenue

. 2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire workers for hand labor activities and/or hire pesticide handlers. Does not include 90,969 primarily livestock operations with total annual sales, including livestock, of less than $100,000.

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enter prise.

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 crops produced. Similarly, labor remains an important input into crop production, despite m echanization. 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 thos e 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 3. 5

- 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

.113

Table 3. 5

- 2

. Average annual revenu e s and employee s, by Farm type and size. Ty pe All Small 1 Large

- Small 1 Medium

- Small 1 Small

- Small 1

All Farms

number 2,001,477 285,502 566,515 1,149,460

average revenue 2 $ 57,469 $323,343 $ 34,656 $ 2,674 employee s 0. 7 2. 0 0.8 0. 4
Crop

- Producing Farms Using Pesticides

number 780,077 244,186 315,092 220,799 average sales 2 $ 130,894 $ 365,161 $ 38,742 $ 3,320 employees 1.6 2.1 1.0 0.8

WPS Farms

number 295,360 141,753 82,690 70,917 average sales 2 $ 203,489 $ 400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914

workers /handlers 3.2 4 .4 3.3 2.5 WPS Farms Using Pesticides

number 231,198 128,237 65,627 37,334 average sales 3 $233,309 $400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914

workers/handlers 3. 9 4. 3 3.5 3.7

Source: EPA estimates based on 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2015) and Special tabulation,

2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008 ).

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 year; medium

- small farms, with annu al sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small

small farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large

- smal l 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 Average revenue by economic category reported in the Census, weighted by the number of farms in each aggregate category defined by EPA ; feedlots in cluded in the same revenue categories as all other

farms to avoid biasing estimates

. 3 Weighted average of EPA defined categories, given average s ales of all WPS farms

.

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 2.5 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. About 75 percent of the small

- small farms that hire labor incur labor costs less than $5,000 per year (NASS, 2015). Given an average wage rate of $14 per hour and assuming employment for an eight

- hour day, labor costs of less than $5,000 per year s uggest less 45 total days the farm employs a worker and with an average of 2.5 workers, it further suggests only about 18 days of employment per worker. It may also be that these employees are engaged

in other revenue

- generating activities not directly re lated to the farm's own crop or livestock production. Ninety

- two percent of farms with less than $10,000 in revenue from sales of crops and/or livestock report that less than 25 percent of household income is derived from agriculture.114



### 3.5 .2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

The incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations and the cost of the regulations in the final rule , summed over the protective categories. Per

- entity unit cost is added to t he per

- worker cost times the number of workers on the establishment . 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 m ake pesticide applications.

Table 3. 5

- 3 presents the number of WPS farms , average sales, and estimated annual incremental cost of the rule by farm size using EPA’s primary estimates of the number of affected farms and

workers/handlers . Annual incremental costs are based on existing requirements in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 3.3.8

, the incremental cost for a small

WPS farm in California is less than the national average due to the regulatory baseline even accounti ng for the relatively higher number of workers per farm

. Despite variation in the number of workers across the different regions of the United States, estimated incremental costs are fairly consistent with the North west region somewhat higher and the Texas / Mountain West region expected to have incremental costs per entity less than the national average.

EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue and does not find a significant impact from the rule . Overall, the impact of th e rule is less than 0.1 percent of

average sales. Only the very smallest farms, with sales of less than $ 10

, 0 00 per year, may face impacts of $83 to $111 per year or nearly three percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one percent of sales could be about 37 ,000 per year , given the number

of small

- small establishments that use pesticides in a year . However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the over 2 ,000 small

- small farms in

Cali fornia that use pesticides and that would face impacts well below the national average. It

also includes nearly 2 3,000 small

- small farms that are primarily field crop and forage producers whose employees are unlikely to engage in hand labor activities tha t would trigger WPS provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or no cost as a result of the final revisions. The remaining 1 2 ,000 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses are those most likely to face the expected incremental cost, representing about si x percent of all small WPS farms.

Table 3.5

- 3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms

All Small WPS

Farms Large

- Small

WPS Farms Medium

- Small

WPS Farms Small

- Small

WPS Farms

Number 295,360 141,753 82,690 70,917 Average Sales $203,489 $400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914 Simultaneous Implementation

Incremental Cost $ 142 $ 204 $ 120 $ 86

Percent of Sales 0.07% 0.05% 0.31% 2.94%

Two

- Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 119 $ 185 $ 109 $ 76

Percent of Sales 0.06% 0.05% 0.28% 2.60% Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008); EPA calculations.

1 Training only.115

EPA examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small

- small farms in order to gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. Th ere 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

- small farms every year of a ten

- year time period, which is an underlying assumption of the anal ysis presented in Table 3. 5

- 3. Less than 55 percent

of small

- small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008) and if these farms hire workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety training if an app lication has been made. Under this scenario, the expected incremental cost to small

small WPS farms would be $ 61 to $96 per year or 2.1 to 3.3 percent of annual sales of agricultural products

.

A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumpt ion that small

- small farms employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications

made more than a month before workers are hired. For small

- small farms, the hazard communication and notification requirements comprise nearly half of the cost at $ 41 per year, based on 20 pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. If workers are only present for a limited period of time, however, this assumption greatly overstates the number

of applications per year when workers are or will be present and small

- small farms will have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small

- s mall farms make only five applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required ( e.g. , with in

about 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the final rule is

about $ 5 4 to $ 6 8 per year or 1. 9 to 2.3 percent of annual sales

.

If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been made and only five applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, the incremental

cost of the rule for small

- small farms averages only $ 3 2 to $53 per year , or 1.2 to 1.8 percent of

annual revenue from agricultural products

.

Given that, for small

- small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated to a significant degree , EPA

concludes th at, even for the smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the final rule w ould generally not be considered significant

.



### 3. 6 S t a te Cos ts

EPA does not anticipate that states or other lead agencies will bear direct costs as a result of the

revisions to the WPS.

States are responsible for enforcing the WPS, which they do through a combination of outreach to employers and inspections of employers. Typically, some inspections are done randomly while others are made as a result of complaints. Revisions to the WPS should not change the total number of inspections over time although they may change the way inspections are conducted on an establishment. Some revisions, such as the record keeping requirements, may facilitate inspections by providing more tangible evi dence of compliance or noncompliance than116

has previously been available. Other revisions may alter the items an inspector will check, for example that there is a safety display provided with decontamination supplies when required

. However, the revisions should not substantially extend the time required for a typical inspection

.

In the short term, EPA anticipates states and other lead agencies may need to redirect resources planned for outreach and training of inspectors as a result of revisions to the WP S. That is, agencies may plan to highlight certain aspects of the rule in programs for employers and/or inspectors each year. State agencies may choose to alter s ome planned programs may in order to focus on changes to the WPS

. However, EPA does not ant icipate that agencies will need

additional resources . There will be an implementation phase for the new requirements, which will allow time for states to prepare for the changes utilizing existing resources.

New materials will have to be developed to cov er new pesticide safety training requirements, particularly materials on how to protect family members from pesticide residues transported from work to the home. However, EPA does not expect states to develop the material. The materials will be developed by EPA in collaboration with the states and disseminated through existing partnership programs.117



## Chapter 4 . Benefits of the Revised Rule

Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in acute effects on workers and handlers as well

as latent healt h effects to workers and handlers. Under the final rule, it is expected that workers and pesticide handlers will have better information and protection s that will enable them to reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to better protectio n of their health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the changes will provide a range of benefits to agricultural workers and handlers. The final rule ensure s that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure , and that they are provided additional protection and mitigation compared to the existing rule

.

By combining several interrelated exposure

- reduction measures, the final rule is expected to

substantial ly mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include requirements intended to reduce exposure by:

 Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides

– The

final rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as changes to ensure that the training is more effective.

 Reducing exposure to pesticides

– Among other things, the final rule c hanges 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 pesticide exposure to the agricultural workforce.

 Mitigating t he effects from exposures that occur

– Accidental exposures are inevitable,

and the final rule i mproves safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to respond

to exposures.

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the final rule t o agricultural workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the changes made in the rule. The preamble describes in detail the requirements of the final rule , and responds to key comments from the public. This chapter discusses h ow the three measure s itemized above will reduce the health effects of exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that pesticide exposure can have to bystanders and families of workers and handlers

.

The final rule includes improved training requirements, in terms of the frequency of training

workers and handlers are receive, and the content of that training. The o ther requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in combination with training

to im prove workers’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect themselves. 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 ro utes 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 after safety training for Hispanic workers.118



### 4.1 Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

EPA expects the 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 rule chan ges include reductions in adverse health effects by:

 avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm

workers and handlers

, and to bystanders

 mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents thr ough 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 , and

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers

, handlers and their families, resulting potentially in reduced chronic illnesses

.

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these 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 poiso ning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing the benefit estimates in this chapter. These effects from exposures that go unreported are not possible to quantify.

Also, provisions in the final rule are designed to clarify the amou nt of decontamination supplies

available

, and improved and more frequent training should increase workers’ and handlers’ understanding of the need to decontaminate thoroughly and seek medical attention when they are exposed to pesticides . 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 pesticid e exposure, followed by a discussion of the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their119

families. Section 4. 5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these benefits can be quantifie d. Section 4. 6 discusses 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 red uced by the rule. The final section of the chapter presents a n analysis that shows some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness.



### 4.2 Who is at Risk?

4.2.1 Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

Pesticides of one type or an other are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the approximately 2. 4 million farm workers (see Table 3. 2

- 4) that are hired by agricultural

establishments , all of whom are potentially exposed to pesticides and risks of adverse health effects (NASS, 2008b). W orkers do not necessarily handle pesticides directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural

- plant pesticides either through contact with residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected application. EPA assumes

there are 300,000 pesticide handlers , included in the farm worker population, that handle pesticides directly ; another 7 2 ,000 handlers are empl oyed or self

- employed at commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 201 4, See Section 3.2.3 ). T he agricultural workforce

as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues and that exposure can pose long and short term healt h risks. It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different toxicities and risks and are

e xposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of frequencies

. However, as a result of an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence published in the peer

- reviewed literature, there is strong evidence that pesticide exposure contributes to ad verse human health outcomes.



### 4.2. 2 Children and families

Several of the changes 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 inadvertently taken home by workers and handlers ; measures that reduce exposure to workers and handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits

for certain worker activities and for handler s ; and t raining on decontamination practices. These changes are particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and

unborn children may be particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are incidentally exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (d iscussed below) may be particularly important for long

- term development.120

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, w hich means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and ar e not uniform across developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and other chemicals differently than adults metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008)

. The 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 and other family members of people engaged in agriculture can be exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

. (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four

different metabolites in a sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non

- dietary sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure model s, found 29 different pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non

- farm households in Iowa, testing for pe sticide contamination inside the homes. They found significantly higher levels of some agricultural pesticides in farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in

the worker changing area and the laundr y 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 , indicating another possible exposure route for both children and

pr egnant women. In a literature review of the take home exposure pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate th at take home exposure is an important source of exposure for children. The studies cited above consistently found higher levels o f pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non

- agricultural households, and that levels of

O rganophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest levels of azinphos

- methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thi nning 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 source 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 Valle y and found several misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less121

harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regular ly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and , as the article states “ previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often report delaying showering for over an hour after work in order to allow their bodies to cool fully

for fear of develo ping 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 develop ment.

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

Adolescents face more risks from occupational pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by establishing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and early entry workers . There is evidence

that adolescents and c hildren 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 f or 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). When teens were asked whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self

- reported frequency for use of respirators and hearing protec tion 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 prob lem attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest 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, particularly in the areas of judg ment,
risk

- taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide applicators. This study coho rt is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high

levels.

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In th e 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

appear ed to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it122

was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discus s 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 surveillance 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. 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 are aware of risks and tradeoffs betwe en 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 during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the 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

establishmen t of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety.



### 4.3 What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families

This section wil l provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families

, including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provid ed in Section 4. 6 and Section

4. 8.



### 4.3.1 Acute Exposures and Effects

The u se 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).

E xposures 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. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure

. Exposure to organo phosphate (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 o f consciousness ( Roberts and Reigart, 2013 ). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death.123

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 ( Roberts and Reigart, 2013 ). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers and handlers also may suffer c hronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including

several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail in Section 4. 6.

Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide

- related

illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and

handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer

- reviewed studies , based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005, and 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 illness cases among California farmworkers

for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory report ing by physicians. Das et
al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, lo ading 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.

Reports t o surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high sev erity, with one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, i t is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases

can reflect significant morbidity, with the expo sure 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 categoriz ed 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 severi ty” cases 3

. The impact on the financial situation of a low

- income farmworker can be dramatic.



### 4.3.2 Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

This section discusses reproductive effects and other risks to children of workers and ha ndlers. 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 exposur e and cancers is in Section 4. 6, because

3 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

- sitablev6.pdf124

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 ; exposure that may be reduced due to the final rule . 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

4. 3

- 1

.

Table 4. 3

- 1. Summary of Findings on Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of Papers

Found Number of Papers Found that

Display an Association Between the

Outcome Examined and Pesticide

Exposure*

Birth Defect 15 14 (+) Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) Fertility** 14 7 (

- )

Altered Growth 10 7 (+)

Fetal Death 11 9 (+)

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

* The direction of the association is shown in parentheses.

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and infertility.

As seen in Table 4. 3

- 1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalie s, central nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still 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 studi es 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, and note they were not able to assess whether publ ication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive.

Potential Health Effects in Children

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre

- nat al 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) studies125

have found an association between pre

- nata l 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 lo ss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exen cephaly (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.

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 developmental processes that continue until adulthood

. In particular

, brain changes continue, such as the final mat uration of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination , an important physiological process that reduce s excess neuron connections in the brain and enclos es individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase s the efficiency of infor mation processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). A dolescents may be subject to incidental exposures by nearby pesticide applications or from take home exposures via parents who work with or around pesticides, all of which can result in adverse health effects. In addition, adolescent workers can be subject to direct occupational exposure , which is a concern due to fact that acute exposure at important stages of development may cause significant health effects and also because employment at a younger age increases the likelihood of chronic exposure, both of which may

result in delayed health effects over a fu ll 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. T his 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.

 The Mount Sinai NYC co hort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary metabolites (TCP and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

The enrollment of the Mt. Sinai cohort over lapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos. However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the126

phase

- out of residential uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications.

 The Center for Health A ssessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS ) cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multipl e pathways such as occupational exposures and take

- home exposures. This team has associated urinary metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

M ost relevant to the WPS rule is the CHAMACOS cohort . The CHAMACOS cohort, being

studie d by research ers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from this cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide expos ure 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 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 durati on (Eskenazi et al ., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et
al ., 2007).

The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos (TCP), and parathion (4

- nitrophenol) metabolites in materna l 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 i n 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 sh orter gestation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004).

Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three cohorts report delayed mental 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).127

Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosp hate (OP) pesticides and the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabo lites, 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, L o vasi, 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 ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children 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 pot ential link between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro

- developmental and

neurobehavioral outcomes than children with out OP exposures. The changes to the WPS will reduce some of these exposures.



### 4.4 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

In the next section, quantified estimate s of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but these quantified esti mates 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 exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits.

Included in the list of benefits to the rule which we are unable to quantify is the value of mitigating the harm from a pesticide exposure. Certain provisions of the rule are designed to enable workers to take action to decontaminate themselves or others after a pesticide exposure, and to seek treatment after a pesticide exposure occurs. Although Section 4.5 discusses the available incident data on pesticide exposures to agricultural farmworkers and attempts to value the benefits from preventable pesticide incidents, many of the incidents that were deemed not preventable could hav e been mitigated had the victim either been better trained to recognize the potential harm from pesticide exposure or how to respond when an exposure occurs. During the course of the incident review, EPA staff identified cases where mitigation could proba bly have improved the outcome (see Section 4.5.3), but we do not have a way to value those benefits. These incidents were determined to not be preventable by the WPS changes for various reasons (e.g. exposure to fumigants, where recent changes to fumigant application requirements would have prevented the exposure, or drift from a distance beyond which the WPS would be protective), but workers did not respond by prompt decontamination, or delayed seeking medical care. Included in the incident reports are w orkers who were drenched with pesticides, but did not attempt decontamination until after the end of the work day, as well as those who did not seek128

medical care for days or weeks after the exposure. In such cases, the WPS would not prevent the

exposure
, so these cases were not included in the preventable cases. Because we do not know all of the details about the exposure levels, we cannot say for certain that the how much of the ill effects from the exposure would have been prevented with proper mitigati on, including immediate decontamination, changing clothes if necessary and quickly seeking medical care. However, many of the cases involved workers or handlers being exposed dermally to pesticides that splashed or were sprayed on them or to residues in f ields that had been treated (in the situations of improper early entry). In these situations, it is reasonable to expect that the effects of a short dermal exposure of several minutes are likely to be less severe than the symptoms of a longer dermal expos ure of several hours of more.

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will result from the WPS, and the dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is not quantified in this analysis. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in

child ren . The WPS rule changes that may reduce these effects , but those benefits are difficult to quantify, so that is not attempted here.

The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non

- quantifiable

benefits from chronic e xposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 4. 8, based on the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 4. 6.



### 4.5 Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

EPA expects that the changes to the WPS will 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 that ca n be quantified to be between $ 5 75 ,000 and $ 2. 6 million annually, although this is a substantial

underestimate . There are important non

- quantifiable benefits that are not included in this estimate, including farmworkers willingness to pay to avoid illness for themselves and their families, as well as the benefit of avoiding illness associated with chronic pesticide exposure

. This section quantif

ies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and handlers associated with acute p esticide exposure.



### 4.5.1 Methodology and Data

A two

- step process is used to estimate the benefits of the rule that accrue through avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines whether the provisions of the rule address the causes of the exposure to estimate the proporti on 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 4. 5.2,

under

- reporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated benefits.129

This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of under

- reporting was known. A

discussion of under

- reporting and the effect on the estimated number of incidents is provided at

the end of this section ; the effect of under

- reporting on the estimated benefits is provided at the

end of Section 4. 5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks

– Pesticides (SENSOR

- Pesticides), administered b y the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR

- Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure.

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the sever ity of the effects. The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss . Because these estimates do not include a victim’s willingness to pay to avoid illness, they underestimate the value of prevented incidents.

Inform ation on medical costs comes from two sources. 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

- Indus try partnership and sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 4

. HCUP databases bring together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data organizations, and the federal government t o create a national information resource of patient

level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all

- payer, encounter

- level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals 5

.

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 4.5.4.



### 4.5.2 Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

There is concern that pestici de incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before a n occupational pesticide

related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they ha ve 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 incid ent 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 illnes s. Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not

4 More information on the H ealthcare Cost and Utilization Project is available here: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/

5 More information on the Healthcare Common Procedure Code system and codes is available here : http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html130

uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin rashes and eye irritation, also have many other ca uses. Systemic poisoning by some of the more common pesticides results in flu

- like or cold

- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper

- respiratory problems that mimi c hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by exposure to poison ivy. Symptoms such as weakness, headaches, dizziness, loss of consciousness, nausea and vomiting, or loss of consciousness are also associated with heat stress

or heat stroke. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 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 an d handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life

- threatening emergencies, many pesticide

- related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical intervention. For example, inhibition of the cholinesterase enzyme by pesticide exposure results

in some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of exposure) dissipate without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will , in most

cases, 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 reported 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 ha ndlers’ 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 ca re access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). These findings are supported by the 2011

- 12 National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) data (DoL, 2011

– 2012). In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do not have

acces s to employer

- provided health insurance

– in 2011

- 2012, only 21% of farmworkers reported having the option for employer

- provided health insurance. USDA research, based on NAWS data, also reports that workers 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 undocumented workers because they fear seeking treatment w ill lead to deportation or other adverse legal action (Kandel, 2008).

The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low

- income persons. Although low

- income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or

have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs:

 Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non

disabled low

- income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, some states use monthly budgeting rules a nd have restrictive asset tests, which make it131

difficult for low

- income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify.

 Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid.

M igrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive verification requirements, particularly if there is limited availability of language assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005).

A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeki ng medical care for agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington State Department of Health, 2003).

Ma ny agricultural workers average 6

- day work weeks during their peak work season. Without sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm (Washington State Department of Health, 2003).

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel 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, physicia ns 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 poisoni ngs for other causes, because they may not associate vague or common 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 be recorded as pesticide relat ed. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under

reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers'

compensa tion records, even when clear

- cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work

- related." (Washington, 1991)

.

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awa reness of reporting requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from132

completing records and reporting incidents (Aza roff 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 which they might have to defend an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this statement" (Arizona, 1990). A California Department of Pesticide Regul ation project to

f amiliarize physicians with the reporting requirement and a definition of pesticide determined that focused outreach to physicians substantially increased physician reporting (Orr and Mehler, 2000).

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, especially 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

, whi ch 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 listed in Table 4. 5

- 1 , and are

summarized after the table.

In addition to the four steps listed above, there is another step whereby exposure incidents are

not reporte d to the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used in this analysis. If a record does not meet the criteria for inclusion in a surveillance database, it means that an exposure will not be recorded, reported and available for review. This fifth step can exclude man y potential cases that would be relevant to evaluating the changes to the WPS. It is discussed below with evidence of the amount of underreporting in this step based on information from California pesticide exposure incidents.133

Table 4. 5

- 1 Summary of Resu lts from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies

Between a Poison Control

Center and a Member Hospital (Harchelroad et al

., 1990) Compare poison control

center reports to actual toxic exposures presented to an urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of

a Regional Poison Information Center (Chafee

Bahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two

- 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%

2006 California Surveillance for

Pesticide

- Related Illness and Injury: Coverage, Bias, and Limitations (Mehler, et al

. , 2006) Evaluate the strengths and

weaknesses of the California

Pesticide Illness Surveillance

Pro gram 47% of hospitalizations for agricultural workers, 84% of poison control reports for all occupational exposure

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

2008 Acute Pesticide Poisoning

Among Agricultural

Workers in the United States, 1998

– 2005 (Calvert,

et al. , 2008) Identifying agricultural pesticide exposure incidents

and estimate incident rates 88% to 95%, when compared to the Department of Labor National Agricultural Workers Survey d

Notes:

a The E mergency M edical D ispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional P oison C ontrol C enter ; resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS

d Based on calculat ion in Calvert et al., 2008, comparing SENSOR

- Pesticides to the National Agricultural Workers Survey

The next few paragraphs summarize and provide more information on the studies listed in Table

4.5

- 1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual S urvey 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). Alth ough attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self

- employed, household and134

small

- farm workers are not recorded in the SOII. Work

- related deaths are also unaccounted for

within t he survey. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some correlation may exist.

The House Committee on Education and 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 cert ain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison c ontrol data. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial underreporting of poisoning incidents . Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting by 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 variabi lity 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 t o 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 poisonin g 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 b e consistently low

.

A study by Mehler et al. (2006) evaluated the efficacy of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) surveillance database, the Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP). The California PISP is widely regarded as the best pesticide illness surveillance data amo ng the states. Even so, by comparing PISP incident data to hospitalization records and poison control center records, Mehler et al. reported that only 16% of occupational pesticide incidents were reported to the PISP. Among occupational agricultural inci dents involving fewer than five135

people, only 53% of hospitalizations and 52% of poison control center incidents were represented in PISP data. Among non

- occupational agricultural incidents involving fewer than five people, only 38% of hospitalizations and 43% of poison control center records were found in PISP records. This problem, however, did not appear to extend to serious cases with multiple victims, as the authors did not find underreporting for cases with five or more people involved. Of course, t he study only covers cases that were already a part of the health care system, otherwise they could not ha ve been compared to the PISP.

Calvert et al. , (2008), estimated incidence rates of agricultural pesticide poisoning, finding that, among agricultural workers annual pesticide poisonings occurred at a rate of 51 per 100,000 farmworkers. Calvert compares these to results from the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), which in 1999 survey farmworkers about pesticide

exposure , illness and medical treatment. Calvert et al. report, based on the SENSOR

- Pesticides data, that 0.07% of farmworkers suffer acute occupational pesticide poisonings annually. They compare that to the NAWS, which reports that 1.4% of agricultural workers suffered medical symptoms as a result of pesticide exposure, and that 0.6% received medical treatment for illness from pesticide exposure. If these numbers are correct, that suggest 0.53% (the difference between 0.6% and 0.07%) of farmworkers received me dical treatment but were not reported to the pesticide illness surveillance system, and 1.33% (the difference between 1.4% and 0.07%) suffered symptoms that were not recorded in counts of pesticide incidents. These number suggest substantial underreportin g: if 0.53% of the 0.6% were not recorded, that is an underreporting rate of 88%. If we were to think about incidents including those where medical treatment is not sought, then 1.4% of farmworkers had illness from pesticide exposure, but

1.33% were not r ecorded, which is an underreporting rate of 95%.

There are additional reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide

incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;

 No central reporting point for all i ncidents;

 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 also good reasons to think that underreporting is at least as significant in the agricultural sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker population as “... younger, less educated, more likely to be for eign

- born, and less likely to be

citizens or authorized to work in the United States.” These attributes reflect a relatively disadvantaged workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide136

incidents to their employers or a nyone 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 counte d in poisoning databases. Calvert et al. , (2008), reports on data from an earlier National Agricultural Worker Survey that indicates 3.2% of agricultural workers reported a known exposure, and 43% of those had physical symptoms from the exposure. Only 0.6 % in the survey had received medical care for a pesticide exposure. Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a population that does not have a lot of resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to inter act with health workers because of their immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with health workers when they do seek

medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure.

Although EPA’s estimates of acute pesticide illnesses prevented by the changes to the WPS are based on reported incidents, other measures show that pesticide exposure to farmworkers is more common than the incident data show. As an example, Arcury et al. (2010) tested urine samples among seasonal farmworkers in North Car olina for metabolites of pesticides, which indicate pesticide exposure, even if the farmworkers were unaware. The authors report that all of the cohort of 196 farmworkers who were tested four times during a growing season, had detections

of four or more m etabolites. About 2/3 of tested farmworkers had detections for seven or more different metabolites. The study does not report whether the exposures were sufficient to require medical care, but the results do indicate that exposure is common. Also, this kind of low level, common exposure has the potential to cause chronic illnesses, which are discussed in Section 4.6

and 4.8.

SENSOR

- Pesticides

The primary source of pesticide exposure incidents that EPA uses in this analysis to estimate prevented acute illness is the SENSOR

- Pesticides database. The SENSOR

- Pesticides databas e covers 12 states from 1998

- 2011 , although reporting varies from state t o state and from year to

year . Cases of pesticide

- related illnesses are ascertained from a variety of sources, including: reports from local Poison Control Centers, state Department of Labor workers’ compensation claims when reported by physicians, reports from State Departments of Agriculture, and physician reports to state Departments of Health. Although both occupational and non

occupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR

- Pesticides focuses on occupational pesticide incidents, and is of p articular value in providing that information. A state SENSOR

Pesticides specialist attempts to follow

- up with occupational and high priority cases (high severity and multiple case events, for example) and obtains medical records to verify symptoms,

circum stances surrounding the exposure, severity, and outcome. Using standardized case definition and list of variables, SENSOR

- Pesticides coordinators at State Departments of Health enter the incident interview description provided by the case, medical report, physician and patient into the SENSO R

- Pesticides s ystem.

A case is considered by CDC/NIOSH to be reportable to SENSOR

- Pesticides when any adverse health effect, resulting from exposure to a FIFRA

- defined pesticide product, occurs. Cases, including all l ow severity cases, must report at least two symptoms to be included in the database. Cases must also be categorized as definite, probable, possible, or suspicious based137

upon a rigorous case classification matrix that takes into account: the temporal relat ionship between adverse health effects and exposure, evidence of a causal relationship between symptoms and the pesticides. “Unlikely” cases are not reportable to SENSOR

- Pesticides.

EPA’s attempt to quantify preventable poisoning cases also indicates tha t there are a substantial number of cases that do not get reported in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used for estimating the benefits here. As part of the process to determine if SENSOR

- Pesticides cases are relevant to the WPS rule changes and determine i f they are preventable (see Section 4.5.3), EPA staff investigated the SENSOR

- Pesticides incident reports and sought out additional information from

the CDPR PISP for those cases from California.

California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP)

The California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) maintains a database of pesticide

related illnesses and injuries. Case reports are received from physicians and via workers’ compensation records. The local County Agricultural Commissioner inves tigates circumstances of exposure. Medical records and investigative findings are then evaluated by DPR technical experts and entered into an illness registry.

PISP contains both residential and occupational pesticide incidents. PISP has limited coverage (only California) and is not particularly useful for national trend information. However, the incident information is entered by professionals with expertise in pesticides, with extensive

follow

- up on each reported case so there is a high level of confid ence in the information provided for each reported incident. PISP is an active surveillance program.

SENSOR

- Pesticides, which is populated by the California Department of Public Health, did not capture many pesticide incidents that were identified in t he CDPR PISP , which is an example of the fifth step in which exposure incidents can be underreported

. Because the estimates of pesticide incidents avoided i n Section 4.5.3 are based on SENSOR

- Pesticides, these are incidents

that are not included in our be nefits estimates. T he number of cases not captured in the

SENSOR

- Pesticides data that are found in PISP may be important to consider in this analysis to characterize part of the underreporting. It appears that the number of SENSOR

- Pesticides

incidents th at were found to be relevant for the WPS changes and proposed changes to the

certification standards 6 is substantially smaller than the potentially relevant cases in the PISP

data. From 2008

– 2011, the PISP data show 1,043 cases potentially relevant to a t least one of

the two rules, and the SENSOR

- Pesticides reports for relevant cases show 326 cases, so only 31% of potentially relevant PISP cases appear in SENSOR

- Pesticides

.

EPA reviewed the individual cases for 2008, where there were 324 cases in PISP. Only 78 of these cases (24%) were in SENSOR. EPA selected 2008 as a reference year to investigate the

differences between PISP and SENSOR

- Pesticides because it was more likely that all relevant investigations had been concluded for the cases from 2008 co mpared to 2011

. EPA identified

6 EPA is engaged in another rulemaking proposing changes to the standards for competence of certified pesticide applicators. SENSOR pesticide incidents are allocated to this rule or that one, to ensure no double

- counting of

incidents.138

the following reasons why the 246 remaining PISP cases were not included in our query of the

SENSOR data:

 In 96 cases, the worker did not seek medical attention, which is a criterion for a case being included in SENSOR

- Pest icides. This was also discussed earlier as a reason for an incident not being reported. For the 324 cases in PISP for 2008, these 96 workers

account for 30% of the cases.

 For 21 of the cases, the worker only exhibited one symptom from the pesticide

expos ure. A case must include two or more symptoms to be included in SENSOR

Pesticides.

 Thirty

- one cases involved drift of an agricultural pesticide into a residential area. While

SENSOR

- Pesticides does include some incidents like this, the focus of SENSOR

Pe sticides is on occupational exposures. It is possible that these 31 cases were not included because they were not occupational exposures.

 There were 23 cases associated with an incident involving an antimicrobial pesticide, which may not have been identif ied as a pesticide and therefore not included.

 Twenty

- one cases were not included for other reasons, including being part of a high profile incident that may not have been reported to the database at the time (because of the sensitivity), being based on an initial report but not final investigation, being identified for different years (e.g., 2007 in SENSOR and 2008 in PISP), and being entered into the system late.

 Finally, there were 54 cases where we could not identify a reason that the incident was

not i ncluded in SENSOR

- Pesticides.

As shown by the analysis of the 2008 cases, a number of factors could account for the difference

in cases between SENSOR

- Pesticides and PISP. As explained above, t he two surveillance programs have different standards for case inclusion and ascertainment. In most of the cases, the incidents in PISP may not have met the standards to be included in SENSOR

- Pesticides (e.g. there was only one poisoning symptom, or the victim was not evaluated by a health professional)

or the i ncident may have seemed otherwise outside the scope of SENSOR

- Pesticides (e.g., the incident did not involve occupational exposure or it did not seem to involve a pesticide). In other cases, particularly those that involve 5 or more people, the report in SENSOR

- Pesticides may be based on an initial notification of an incident but not the final investigation summary that is in PISP, resulting in differences in the number of people injured. The active ingredient, enforcement response or other information ma y also be different, resulting in our inability to categorize an incident in SENSOR

- Pesticides as relevant. CDPR also has the County Agricultural Commissioner investigate every case of illness exposure that is entered into PISP. Thus, the evaluation of t he likelihood of the illness being associated with pesticide exposure is a combination of medical evaluation and information from the field. Finally, cases that are reported to DPR from poison control, County Agricultural Commissioner investigations, or t ips and complaints from the general public may not get reported to CDPR and consequently to

SENSOR

- Pesticides. While the two state agencies invest considerable time in ensuring one uniform list of statewide occupational illnesses, differences remain. Thes e figures indicate that many pesticide exposure incidents are not included in the data used for the quantified benefit

estimates of this rule.139

Comparing SENSOR

- Pesticides to PISP

The analysis of the differences between PISP and California cases in SEN SOR

- Pesticides for 2008 can be used to estimate the underreporting that occurs at other points in the process than the

estimates in the studies shown in Table 4.5

- 1. In particular,

 Seeking medical attention is discussed as the second of the steps identif ied by Das et al. (2001) that lead to underreporting (see Section 4.5.2). For the 2008 PISP data, the worker did not seek medical attention in 30% of the cases (96 cases out of 324 total cases). We assume that 30% of the cases are not reported because of this reason (or that 70% of the cases are reported).

 The studies discussed in Table 4.5

- 1 estimate the share of incidents that are reported by physicians into a recordkeeping system, which is discussed as step 4 by Das et al . (2001).

Based on the inform ation reported in those studies, we assume that 70% of cases are not reported for this step (or that 30% of the case are reported).

 For a variety of reasons, including not meeting the criteria for inclusion in SENSOR

Pesticides, possibly being outside the focus of SENSOR

- Pesticides, and for logistical reasons other than those discussed above, known pesticide incidents do not appear in

SENSOR

- Pesticides. In addition to the 96 cases that did not seek medical care in the 2008 PISP data, there were 150 other c ases that were in PISP but not SENSOR

Pesticides. This means that 46% of the cases (150 out of 324 cases) were not reported for other reasons, so we estimate that 46% of cases do not get into SENSOR

- Pesticides (or 54% of the cases are reported).

Conside ring only the underreporting due to these three factors, EPA estimates that in California,

about 11.3% of incidents in 2008 were reported to SENSOR

- Pesticides. While this estimate may seem low, it is calculated by multiplying the percent of cases that are reported in each step: 0.7 (sought medical attention) * 0.3 (cases reported by medical staff) * 0.54 (made it into SENSOR

Pesticides by meeting the criteria, being in the scope of the database

, etc. ). While this analysis covered the incidents reported for only one year, it is important information because it deals specifically with cases involving occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides.

This is still a conservative estimate that does not quantify the impact of all of the reasons

incidents ma y not be counted that are discussed in this section , such as step 1 (workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness) and step 3 (the physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide

- related). The description of t he SENSOR

Pesticide cases indicated that some workers or employers attributed their symptoms to other causes, such as a virus, general fatigue, heat, or something they ate. However, EPA does not have enough information to attempt to quantify this factor. We also do not have information available to attempt to identify the percent of incidents that are underreported by physicians diagnosing symptoms as being caused by something other than pesticides.

The limited available data for pesticide poisonings 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 from140

avoided pesticide inci dents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 4.5.



### 4.5.3 Pesticide Incidents Avoided

As described above, the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupa tional Exposure (SENSOR

- Pesticides) is a surveillance program from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) designed to monitor occupational illnesses related to pesticide

exposure

. T his database contains detail on the occupational exposures that led to the incident report, their severity and their causes

. SENSOR

- Pesticides reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances

of the incident. These data are used to estimate the final rule’s effect on pesticide incidents by evaluating the proportion of incidents that would be avoided due to the rule.

The database from SENSOR

- Pesticides is used for estimating the final rule’s effect. EPA

obtained data for a four

- year period, 2008 to 2011, during which time ten states (California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) reported incidents involving pesticides to SENSOR

- Pesticides. Al though SENSOR

- Pesticides data are available for earlier years, only data from 2008

– 2011 are used in this evaluation

because it is the most recent multi

- year data available and therefore are most likely to represent the pesticides, equipment and agricultu ral practices used today. Because only ten states reported

to SENSOR

- Pesticides over this time frame, we extrapolate the expected number of incidents

and incidents avoided to the national level.

To estimate the annual national number of pesticide inciden ts avoided by this rule, we need to

scale the data from the SENSOR

- Pesticides states to the national level. If we let PI s,l be the number of preventable incidents in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, and FW
s be the number of

farmworkers in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, then we can define RP s,l = PI s,l /FW
s , which will be an estimate of the number of preventable incidents per farmworker, which is done for each level of likelihood for the incident being avoided. We will assume that the rate of preventable incidents per farmworker nationally, RP n,l , is equal to RP s,l . Therefore, we can estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RP n,l by the number of farmworkers nationally. We can do a similar estimation using farms, rather than farmworkers.

RP
s ,l , the rate of preventable incidents per farmworker, is estimated by taking the number of avoided incidents annually, and dividing it by the number of farmworker in the SENSOR

Pesticides state s, and then scaling the result into preventable incidents per 1,000 farmworkers, and similarly for farms. The estimates for farmworkers and farms are from the same data as in Chapter 3, although more disaggregated

. The estimated incident rates and nation al estimates of

avoided incidents are shown in Table 4.5

- 3 , below.

EPA did not use all the available SENSOR

- Pesticides case reports for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certifi ed applicators or applicators under their direct supervision . T hese applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also being revised. To avoid double counting avoided incidents, EPA141

reviewed each of the RUP cases to determine whether it shou ld be used to support the WPS changes, the certification rule changes, or neither.

To ensure a consistent approach in reviewing incidents and to avoid double counting incidents by using them to support both the proposed changes to the pesticide applicator certification regulations and the final regulations on the Worker Protection Standard, EPA compiled cases from three separate queries of SENSOR

- Pesticides into one database. These three queries were:

• Cases from 2009 and 2010 that involved a restricted us e product and had at least one contributing factor (also known as a prevention code) identified. EPA initially focused this query on cases with prevention codes to draw upon the training and expertise of

NIOSH and the SENSOR

- Pesticides state surveillance coordinators who investigate and code these cases. However, further investigation revealed that some relevant incidents were not captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.” The cases from this query focused on incidents r elated to the proposed certification rule and, at the time of the query, represented the two most recent years of

available data.

• Cases from 2008 through 2011 that occurred in an agricultural setting, which was identified based on the occupational and indu stry codes in SENSOR

- Pesticides. This query focused on incidents related to the WPS and, at the time of the query, represented the four most recent years of available data.

• Cases from 2008 through 2010 that involved drift from an agricultural application. This query was run to ensure that we captured all relevant drift cases. If a pesticide applied to an agricultural crop drifted onto bystanders in a different profession (such as teachers or cooks at a school), the industry and occupational codes of the bystanders would reflect their industry and may not be captured by the query in the previous bullet that searched for agricultural occupational and industry codes. This query focused on drift incidents related to the WPS and, at the time of the query, repr esented the three most recent years of available data.

The cases from these three queries were combined into one data set to account for duplicate cases (i.e., cases identified by more than one of the queries). The pesticide (or pesticides)

involved with each case was analyzed to determine whether or not it was a restricted use pesticide (RUP). In many cases, the specific pesticide product EPA registration number was identified so a definite determination could be made about whether the pesticide was an RUP. In some cases, only the active ingredient was identified so the determination of the product’s RUP status could not be made definitively.

The cases that involved an RUP (or that likely involved an RUP if the specific product was not known) were init ially assumed to be related to the certification rule. However, EPA reviewed each of these cases to determine whether it was more related to the certification regulation or the WPS. For example, if an incident involved workers entering a field before the restricted entry interval of an RUP expired, this would be related to the WPS even though it involved an RUP because Certification is relevant to the competency of the applicator, not protection of workers after the application is complete. If an RUP inc ident was determined to be more likely to be prevented by the changes to the WPS, it is included in this analysis of the WPS and will not be used to inform the certification rule changes to avoid double counting.142

EPA also reviewed all of the cases to iden tify the ones that could not be used to inform either the proposed certification changes or the final WPS regulations. For example, incidents that happened at a formulating or manufacturing plant do not involve certified applicators, so they are

not relev ant to the certification rule, and also would not be covered by the WPS. Also, incidents that involved pesticides that were not RUPs used in activities that are not covered by WPS, such

as post

- harvest uses of antimicrobial pesticides, are not related to either rule.

As a result of this exercise, EPA identified 854 cases that could potentially be used to inform the final WPS or the proposed certification rule, which were categorized as follows:

• 402 cases could potentially were relevant to the final WPS ru le

• 301 cases could potentially were relevant to the proposed certification rule

• 151 cases, upon review, were not related to either the WPS or certification rules.

The rest of this discussion focuses on the 402 cases that are relevant to the final WPS rule. Nebraska, a new SENSOR

- pesticides state in 2011, did not report any cases in the earlier years and reported four cases in 2011. To ensure that our data are in fact from a four year period, four reported incidents from Nebraska were removed from the data, leaving 398 cases.

Using the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR

- Pesticides and any additional information provided by the state (for California and Washington), EPA was able to identify the proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these cases, the information identified in the SENSOR

- Pesticide database and, additional information

from the state if it was available for the cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the f

inal WPS rule could prevent the exposure that caused the incident and whether the provisions of the final WPS rule could mitigate any pesticide exposures that could not be prevented. In other words, incidents were assessed to determine both preventability and whether the effects could be mitigated by the final WPS rule.

In terms of preventability, each case was categorized as “preventable”, “possibly preventable”, “not preventable” or “not enough information” by the final WPS rule. Categories were assign ed using the following guidelines:

• Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the effect and the information demonstrated a set of circumstances that would be prevented by compliance with the final WPS rule. For example, pesticide drift from an aerial application onto a bystander 60 feet from the field would be prevented by the requirement for handlers (applicators) to suspend applications if workers or other persons were in the application exclusion zone. Other types of incidents included in this category are handlers who did not wear the required PPE (which would be addressed by improved handler training) and exposure to handlers resulting from respirators that did not fit or were not used properly (which would be addressed by the requirements for respirator medical evaluation, fit tests and training).

• Possibly Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the effect and the set of circumstances might be prevented by compl iance with the final WPS rule but there was some uncertainty. The uncertainty could involve not having enough details to know exactly how the exposure happened, or some143

ambiguity about whether the final WPS provisions would prevent the circumstances.

Man y of these cases were drift incidents where drift was not confirmed by sampling or where the potentially exposed people were outside of the application exclusion zone but close enough that it is possible the applicator could see them and suspend applicatio n to ensure that the pesticide spray did not contact the person. Other common scenarios involve handlers taking an action that may not be prohibited by the label (like taking off safety glasses that weren’t required by the label) but that could be prevent ed by better handler training and good management practices resulting from that training.

• Not Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the effect but the set of circumstances would not be prevented by complianc e with the final WPS rule or incidents where there was not a clear link between the exposure and the effect. For example, a worker might experience symptoms while working in a field where the restricted entry interval had expired. In this case, the worke r could legally work in the field without any personal protective equipment and some other WPS provisions would not apply, so there would not be any requirements in the final WPS rule that would prevent this from happening. (There are some provisions that could mitigate exposure to any pesticides, as described below.) Also, many of the cases in this category involve soil fumigants and would have been prevented by the recent changes to those product labels.

• Not Enough Information: Incidents where there is not enough information to make a determination about whether the final WPS rule would have prevented the incident.

It should be noted that the distribution of cases from SENSOR

- pesticide states is not even. Almost 50% of the cases are from California, a nd 33% are from Washington. Although there may be reasons for a higher number of cases in these two states, which are relatively large employers of farm labor who perform a lot of handwork, differences in reporting rates between states are likely. All PI SP cases in California are investigated by the County Agricultural Commissioners (Mehler, et al. , 2006), and California and Washington have higher staffing levels for surveillance, and identify pesticide exposure cases through workers’ compensation records (Calvert et al. , 2008). The difference in state reports of incidents may indicate substantial underreporting in other states. Florida, for example, reported 6 incidents over the four years, an annual rate of 0.017 per thousand farmworkers, quite a bit l ower when compared to California (0.116 incidents per thousand farmworkers) or Washington (0.136 incidents per thousand farmworkers). Because there is no reason to believe that workers in Florida have substantially different behaviors and practices than workers in California and Washington, a major difference

in the worker incident rates between states with comparable agricultural work is likely to reflect

a difference in the incident surveillance systems.

In many cases, after an exposure occurs, the harm caused by the pesticide exposure could be mitigated by prompt action to decontaminate and seek medical care (see Section 4.4). EPA also

looked at the SENSOR

- pesticides incidents to determine if the inciden ts could have been mitigated.

In terms of “mitigate

- ability”, each case was categorized as “could be mitigated”, “possibly could be mitigated”, or “not mitigate

- able” by the final WPS rule. Categories were assigned using the following guidelines:144

• Incid ents that could be mitigated: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the effect and the effects of the exposure would have been mitigated by compliance with the final WPS rule. For example, this category includes cases where a

wor ker or handler was exposed to pesticides and did not decontaminate right away, e.g., they waited to shower until they went home that night. This category also includes cases where an exposed worker or handler waited a long time to inform their employer

ab out the exposure or to seek medical attention. Improved worker and handler training should increase understanding about the importance of promptly mitigating any pesticide exposures and lead to more thorough decontamination and quicker medical

care.

• In cidents that possibly could be mitigated: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the effect and the effects of the exposure might have been mitigated by compliance with the final WPS rule but there was some uncertainty. For exampl e, many cases don’t include any information about decontamination or how long the person waited before seeking medical care.

• Incidents that are not mitigate

- able: incidents where the proper decontamination and emergency assistance were followed or cases i nvolving a person who would not be required to take the worker or handler training, such as a certified applicator or a

farmer.

Although we do not attempt to value the benefits of additional mitigation here for the reasons described in Section 4.4, we do note that using the method just described we find that of the 398

WPS relevant cases in SENSOR

- pesticides, 57 were classified as mitigatible and 86 appear to be possibly mitigatible, which represents 36% of all WPS relevant cases evaluated by EPA.

The review of the four years of SENSOR

- Pesticides data identified 119 cases that were preventable under the revisions to the WPS. Ano ther 102 cases were possibly preventable. Cases deemed “preventable” were used to calculate the low

- end ratio of acute exposure cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents.

Table 4. 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 30 % and 56% of pesticide illnesses where the WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases similar to those deemed preventable due to the rul e changes, as discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly preventable after the rule changes.145

Table 4.5

- 2: Estimated SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases Avoided, 2008

– 2011

Likelihood of being avoided by

Rule Ch anges Number of Cases Avoided, 2008

- 2011 Average Annual

Number of Cases Avoided, 2008

- 2011 Percent of WPS

Cases (398 Cases)

Preventable 119 29.8 30%

Possibly Preventable 102 25.5 26%

Both Preventable and Possibly

Preventable 221 55.3 56%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data.

The number of incidents that could have been prevented or possibly prevented annually in the SENSOR states, is shown in the third column of Table 4.5

- 2 . This number is one

- fourth what is shown in the second column, because the prevented incidents are from a four year period . These estimates are presented for both preventable and possibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the

table. As shown in Table 4.5

- 3 , f or every 1 ,000 farmworkers in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states,

there are an estimated 0.0 50 pesticide illness incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by the rule. For every 1,000 farms, there are 0. 433 preventable or possibly preventable pesticide incid ents. Also shown in Table 4.5

- 3 is the national estimate of avoided pesticide incidents, estimated using both the number of farms and farmworkers. The estimates in this column were calculated by multiplying the annual preventable incident rate per farm or farmworker ( RP n,l = RP s,l ) times the number of farms or farmworkers nationally. These calculations yield an estimate of annual pesticide incidents prevented by the rule of 9 9 on the low end, and 1 62 on the upper end. This estimate accounts only for re ported incidents, which are likely to be a small proportion of the total number of incidents.146

Table 4.5

- 3: Estimated SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases Avoided, 2008

– 2011

Likelihood of being avoided by

Rule Changes Annual

Avoidable

Incident rate per 1,000

Farmwo rkers National Estimate

of WPS Cases Avoided Annually

Based on

Farmworker

Incident Rate Annual

Avoidable Incident rate per 1,000 Farms National Estimate of

WPS Cases Avoided Annually Based on

Farm Incident Rate

Preventable 0.027 54 0.233 87

Possibly

Preventable 0.023 46 0.200 75

Both

Preventable and Possibly

Preventable 0.050 99 0.433 162

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data. The incident rates are based on a count of 1,1 08

, 211

farmworkers or 1 27,664 farms in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states during 2012, and the national estimates are based on an average of 1,995,037 farmworkers or 374,791 farms in 2012. Note: The number of cases avoided is based on four years of information, while the final column is an annual

estimate.

The analysis of the differences between California PISP data and SENSOR

- Pesticides indicated

that in 2008, 11.3% of pesticide exposure incidents are reported into SENSOR

- Pesticides, which we use for quantifying acute benefits of the rule. California has a very robust reporting, investigation and surveillance system, and underreported incidents are likely to b e higher in other states. If, for that reason, we assume that 10% of cases are reported into SENSOR

- Pesticides, the estimated number of incidents per year is 540

– 990 using the estimates from Table 4.5

- 3 based on the number of workers, and 870 to 1,620 u sing the estimates based on the number of

farms.

Another factor that was discussed in this section regarding the number of incidents identified in

SENSOR is that the distribution of case s from SENSOR

- Pesticides states is not even. Specifically, Californi a accounts for nearly 50% of the annual cases in SENSOR (while having about 21% of the workers) and Washington accounts for about 33% of the annual cases in SENSOR (while having 12% of the workers). The reported rate of SENSOR

- Pesticides

incidents is 5 to 8 times higher in California and Washington than in some of the other states, such as Oregon and Florida, where the average annual number of cases per thousand workers is:

 0.136 for Washington

 0.116 for California

 0.021 for Oregon

 0.017 for Florida.

The re may be a number of reasons that the rate of incidents varies between states, including differences in the crops, agricultural practices, length of growing seasons, state and local147

regulations, and the proximity of urban and agricultural areas. We also know that California and Washington have higher staffing levels for surveillance and review workers’ compensation records to identify potential pesticide exposure cases. Assuming that the difference in incident rates largely reflects the difference in inc ident surveillance systems, we can use the average of the rates in California and Washington to estimate the number of cases that could have been included in SENSOR if other states had surveillance systems comparable to California and Washington . For exam ple, the Washington/California average annual number of cases per thousand workers is 0.126. Using this value to estimate the number of anticipated incidents each year based on the number of workers in Florida and Oregon results in an estimate of 10.8

– 1 0.9 cases per year in both states, compared to the actual average of 1.75 cases per year for Oregon and 1.5 cases per year for Florida. Using the same process of extrapolation to a national estimate based on the incident rate per farmworker, this would re sult in a national estimate of 117 total cases per year. Compare this to the initial estimate based only on the SENSOR

- Pesticides reported data, which was 99 cases per year (see Table 4.5

- 2). If, as above, only ten percent of pesticide exposure incidents are reported in SENSOR

- Pesticides, this would mean the estimated number of incidents annually would be 630

– 1170 based on the number of farmworkers, and 1,020

– 1,900 based on the number of farms. In other words, a change of just 18 cases per year

in SE NSOR by adjusting the rate in only two states has a relatively large impact to the overall

estimate of number of cases.



### 4.5.4 Value of Incidents Avoided

As explained in Section 4.5.1, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the

medical c osts avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. These are not the only sources of value, but they are quantifiable. Other unquantifiable benefits

are discussed in Section 4.4 and 4.6. The value of avoided inciden ts 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. People suffering from more severe effects are more likely to seek medical treat ment. Further, a more severe effect is likely to 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

V i Av

= E [ MedCost i ] + VPL i

where V

i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] i s the expected medical cost for the case,

and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels

described in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database as described below: Low Severity, Moderate Severity, High Severity, and Death.

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

E [ MedCost i ] = Prob ( HCF | i ) × [ OutPtnt i + InPtnt i ]148

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 co st only includes expenses at health care facilities, so any self

- treatment expenses will be underestimated.

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 lost, work is the t ime 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 is simply the value o f 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 (EPA, 2010a). In the SENSOR data used for this analysis, there were no preventable deaths, so the VSL is not used.

Probability of Effect

The SENSOR

- Pesticides data on pesticide illnesses contains information about the severity of

the illness for each incident. As shown in Table 4.5

- 4 , considering only the preventable and possibly preventable incidents , about 77% of the acute cases considered resulted in “low severity illness or injury”, almost 22% percent in “moderate severity illness or injury,” under 2% in “high severity illness or injury,” and no deaths. The majority of cases prevented are in the c ategories of low or moderate severity. Deaths due to pesticide exposure are fortunately rare, and none appeared during our sample. However, the probability of death occurring in the farmworker population is merely low, not zero. Deaths are more likely t o be associated with exposure to

RUPs , even though farmworkers may be exposed to RUPs through activities for which the WPS provides protection. Our analysis here uses a probability of death as zero rather than some positive number, and this is another rea son the acute benefits are underestimated.

Table 4.5

- 4 : Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 1 69 76. 5 % Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 49 2 2.2 % Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 3 1. 4 % Category S

- 1: Death 0 0.0%

Total 22 1 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2008

- 2011149

The four severity categories in the SENSOR

- Pesticides data are defined as follows (NIOSH, 2001):

 S

- 4 Low severity illness or injury This is the category of lowest severity. It is often manifested by skin, eye or upper respiratory irritation. It may also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (<3 days) from

work or normal activities

.

 S

- 3 Moderate severity illness or injury This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic manifestations. Generally, treatment was provided. The individual is able to return to normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or normal activities (3

- 5 day s), compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual impairment is present (altho ugh effects may be persistent).

 S

- 2 High severity illness or injury The illness or injury is severe enough to be considered life threatening and typically requir es treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time ( > 5 days) from regular work (this can include assignment to limited/light work duties) or normal activities (if not employed). This level of severity might include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment

.

 S

- 1 Death This category describes a human fatality resulting from exp osure to one or more pesticides.

Given the distribution of ef fects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 4.5

- 4 and

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 4.5

- 3 , EPA estimates the distribution of preventable WPS incidents across the four severity levels. Table 4.5

- 5 shows the estimated

nu mber of national incidents , with no adjustment for underreporting

, that may be prevented by the rule for each severity level, based on the high and low estimates of cases prevented from

Table 4.5

- 3 . Estimates are included based on national estimate create d using the number of

farms and the number of farmworkers.150

Table 4.5

- 5 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of

Cases Prevented Annually Based on

Farmworkers Estimate of

Number of Cases

Prevented Annually Based on

Farms

Clinical Effect Share of

Total Low End

Estimate (30%) High End

Estimate (56%) Low

End

Estimate (30%) High

End

Estimate (56%)
Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 76. 5 % 41 7 6 67 1 24

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 2 2.2 % 1 2 2 2 1 9 3 6

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 1. 4 % 1 1 1 2

Category S

- 1: Death 0.0% 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0% 5 4 9 9 87 1 62

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 4.5

- 3 and 4.5

- 4

. Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers. Unadjusted for underreporting of incidents.

Valuation of Illnesses Prevented

The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 4.5

- 10 through 4.5

- 1 3 ). The estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated number of cases prevented is based on the number of reported cases annually, which is likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 4.5.2.

Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost 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 significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particular, these estimates 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 person’s anticipated value of preventing illness 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). In the descriptions above of the SENSOR

- Pesticides severity classifications, cases classed as “major severity” might need “continued health care” and

“limitations or modification of work or normal activitie s.” In addition, the victim “may sustain permanent functional impairment.” None of these longer term effects are visible in the SENSOR data other than a severity classification, so they are not captured in the estimates here , but they are examples of indi viduals not returning to their original health. Obviously, these longer term151

effects from acute exposure could have an important effect on the quality of life for someone who suffers a major severity incident

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 can not 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.

In Table 4.5

- 5 , estimates of the nu mber of cases that may be avoided as a result of the 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 hospitalizatio ns, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death ,” the value of lost productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. For each severity level, an average le ngth 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 [ MedCost i ] = Prob ( HCF | i ) × [ OutPtnt i + InPtnt i ]

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 sever ity level, we

used the SENSOR

- Pesticides information for those cases which were deemed preventable or possibly preventable for 2008

– 2011. The SENSOR

- Pesticides data indicates whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s office, an emergency room, employee health center, or admitted to a hospital. Table 4.5

- 6 presents the number of cases that were seen at a health care facility, the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each category’s p ercentage 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 that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table

4 .5

- 6 . It is not surprising that the share receiving medical care is so high, because to be included

in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database requires at least two reportable symptoms of pesticide exposure, and because the cases treated by medical professionals a re more likely to be reported

to SENSOR

- Pesticides.15 2

Table 4.5

- 6 : Health Care Sought for Preventable Pesticide

- Related Acute Exposures,

SENSOR

- Pesticides 2008

- 2011.

Clinical Effect Cases Seen

at Health

Care Facility Total

Cases Share of Cases

Seen at Health Care Facility

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 13 2 1 69 78%
Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 45 49 92% Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury 3 3 100%

Source: SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2008

– 2011.

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3

– Hospital Inpatient Statistics for 20 12

. For Diagnosis Related Group 2 43 ( P oisoning by Substances other than M edicine ) the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $ 35,623 7

.

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data 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) 8

. Evaluation and management costs are available for the leve l of service required for both new and established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213 and 99203

, which describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem.

For 2012 , the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category was $ 71

. 39 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor (HCPC Criteria 99213) and $ 106.45 for new patients (HCPC Criteria 99203) . Given an equal chance that the

person ex posed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $ 88

. 92 . Th ese data reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services. This may be an underestimate, whic h 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 4.5

- 7

.

7 The inpatient co sts can be queried here: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp?Id=B97AB29AA72E4376&Form=DispTab&GoTo=MAINSEL&JS=Y

8 The average facility charge for all providers in 2009

- 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp153

Table 4.5

- 7 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF| i ) Outpatient

Cost Inpatient

Cost Expected

Medical

Cost 1

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 78 % $ 88.92 $0 $ 69.45

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 92% $ 88.92 $0 $ 81. 66

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 100% $ 88.92 $ 35,623 $3 5

, 711

. 92

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

The Value of Lost Productivity

The value of lost productivity is estimated as the 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 [ VPL i ] = ( ω w work + ω H h ousekeepi ng + ω L leisure ) × DUR i

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 d uration of the effect.

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, 2013 a ), an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5.51 hours per day over a

seven

- day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2013 b ), the average time spent by those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day. Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day. Agricultural workers probably work more hours than the average worker, at least during the growing season, so using the national average would be an underestimate.

The hourly value of work is mea sured as the weighted average wage rate for handlers and

farmworkers , weighted using the number of each in 201 2 (see Section 3. 2

. 3 of this economic analysis), or $ 16.10 per hour. This analysis assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. The

value of house keeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 (BLS, 2013 a ). This 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, 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 29.4 percent (Tax Foundation, 2013), which

leaves an after

- tax return of $ 19.15 per hour for leisure.154

Table 4.5

- 8 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 4.5

- 8 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 $ 275.45 per day.

Table 4.5

- 8 : Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value (ω) Total Value per

Day

Work 5.51 a $ 16.10 c $ 88.69
Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23 d $ 19.99

Leisure 8.71 b $ 19.15 e $ 166.77

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $ 275.45

Sources:

a BLS, 2013 b , Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times and subtracting the time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

c EPA Estimates

– see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2013 a
, CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($449) and assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $11.23 per hour.

e Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (29.4%).

The SENSOR

- Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the pesticide incident, although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work 9 . For the lowest severity category, time lost from work is less than three days, while for moderate severity incidents, between three and five days of work are lost. For high severity incidents, time lost from work is greater than five days, although the descr iption of the category cautions that “[t]his level of severity might include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may susta in permanent functional impairment.” This description indicates that the damage from a pesticide incident could last substantially longer than five days. As shown in Table 4.5

- 9 , for the moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the range as the estimate of the time lost from the pesticide exposure. For the low severity category, the high end (three days) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range between zero and three days, or 1.5 days. For the high severity category, the low end of the range is defined as five days, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this analysis, we assume that the upper end is 30 days, which is somewhat arbitrary.

Table 4.5

- 9 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

9 The description of the severity indices can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

sevindexv6.pdf155

days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($ 275.45 ) to yield high and low estimates of lost productivity for each severity level.

Table 4.5

- 9 : Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by

Clinical Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Duration of

Clinical Effect (Days) E[VPL i ] a

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury Low

- End 1.5 $413.17

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury High

- end 3 $826.34

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury Low

- End 3 $826.34

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury High

- end 5 $1,377.24

Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury Low

- End 5 $1,377.24

Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury High

- end 30 $8,263.43

Sources: EPA calculations

a The unit cost for lost productivity day by severity category was calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($ 275.45 ).

Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents

The estimates of the total annual health and productivity cost avoided by the rule are given in

Tables 4.5

- 10 , 4.5

- 1 1 , 4.5

- 1 2 and 4.5

- 1 3 . 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 th en sum across all severity levels to estimate the total avoided

costs for the rule. Tables 4.5

- 10 and 4.5

- 1 1 show the estimates based on extrapolation from

SENSOR

- Pesticides states to national estimates based on the number of farmworkers , and Tables

4.5

- 1 2 and 4.5

- 1 3 show the estimates based on the number of farms . The low end estimates are

based on the low end estimates of medical and productivity c osts and the low end estimate of the number of prevented cases, while the high end estimates are based on h igher estimates of medical and productivity costs and the high

- end number of prevented cases.156

Table 4.5

- 10 : “Low

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farmworker

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided
Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 41 $69.45 $ 413.17 $19,766

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 12 $81.66 $ 826.34 $10,782

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $ 1337.24 $26,965

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 54 $57,513

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

Table 4.5

- 1 1 : “ High

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farmworker

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided
Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 7 6 $69.45 $826.34 $68,134

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 2 2 $81.66 $1,377.24 $32,173

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $8,263.43 $59,374

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 9 9 $159,681

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.157

Table 4.5

- 1 2 : “ Low

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farm

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided
Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 6 7 $69.45 $413.17 $32,336

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 1 9 $81.66 $826.34 $17,252

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $1,377.24 $37,089

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 8 7 $86,677

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

Table 4.5

- 1 3 : “High

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farm

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided
Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 1 24 $69.45 $826.34 $111,078

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 3 6 $81.66 $1,377.24 $52,520

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 2 $35,711.92 $8,263.43 $96,746

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 1 62 $260,345

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $ 58,000 to 260,000 . Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is :

 between $ 491,000 and $1.4 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied to estimates based on the incident rate per farmwork er

 b etween $ 404,000 and $1.1million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied to estimates based on the incident rate per farmworker158

 between $ 740,000 and $2.2 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied to estimates based on the incident rate per farm

 b etween $ 609,000 and $1.8 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied to estimates based on the incident rate per farm

There are limitations to these estimates. As discussed above, we expect that a large proportion of accidental (acute) pestici de poisoning never get reported or investigated for various reasons. All

indications are that under

- reporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in the poisoning surveillance databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. T his under

reporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward.

In Table 4.5

- 1 4 , we show the effect of under

- reporting at different rates on the monetized estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings, using the estimates based on incidents per far m. With 100% reporting (or 0% under

- reporting), the actual benefit of preventing acute illness is equal to the estimated benefit. If there is under

- reporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 4.5

- 1 4 shows a range of benefit es timates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 25%, 20%, 10%, and 5 %), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about under

- reporting. Under EPA’s best estimate , if only 10% of cases are reported, and if under

- reporting is equally likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels, then the low

- end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due to the rule

would be about $870,000 per year, and the high

- end estimate would be about $2. 6 million per

year. The estimates in Table 4.5

- 1 4 are based on extrapolating to national estimates from

SENSOR

- Pesticides data based on the number of recorded pesticide exposure incidents per farm. These are higher than the estimates based on the number of incidents p er farmworker (compare

tables 4.5

- 10 through 4.5

- 1 3 ). If we assume 10% reporting, using the estimates based on incidents per farmworker from tables 4.5

- 10 and 4.5

- 1 1 , the estimate of prevented cases would range from a low of 536 to a high of 995. The est imates of benefits are $575,000 to $1.6 million.

Table 4.5

- 1 4 . Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about

Under

- reporting

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% 87 $86,677 162 $260,345

25% 348 $346,708 648 $1,041,378

20% 435 $433,385 810 $1,301,723

10% 870 $866,769 1,620 $2,603,446

5% 1,740 $1,733,538 3,240 $5,206,892

Source: EPA Calculations , based on the number of farms.

E ven without underreporting, the estimates are undervalued . T he estimates are based solely on the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. W e are unable to measure the159

willingness to pay to avoid illness , which is EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced

risk ( EPA , 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 rep resents 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.

All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section include on ly the effects of reduced illness from acute exposure based only on the cases that were included in the SENSOR

Pesticides database

– the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section, which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pestic ide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects.

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 s ociety 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 o verall working year. The financial impact is also relatively greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families live below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000

- $12,499 per year, and

aver age 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).

The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects.



### 4.6 What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers

and Handlers

In the p revious 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 additio n to these acute effects, there are chronic health effects associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this160

section, EPA p resents a semi

- quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break

- even analysis”) of improved chronic health conditions, i.e. , chronic cases avoided due to the rule.

T his section presents evidence of well

- documented associations between pesticide exposur e and

certain cancer and non

- cancer chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. 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 prema ture at this stage to suggest a

causal link between these health outcomes and exposure to any specific pesticides . Typically several epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within different study population s in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real world pe sticide exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure

chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. Therefor e, overall pesticide exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this

time. The environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly , however, in terms of both quantity and quality of pesticide epidemiolog y studies

. EPA believes additional causal links between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time.

There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by governments in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest plausible hypotheses between pesticide

exposure and several chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Na tional 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 applicators and their sp ouses, investigating a broad array of potential illnesses. A study in Norway to investigate s links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals in a cohort of over 245,000 people (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 initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH

, which is designed to encourage international collaboration

. I t encom passes 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 exposure to multiple chemicals, 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. M any 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, l awful use of pesticides ; however, misuse does occur (Bell et al ., 2006). These certified applicators that161

form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural

workers and handlers.

A nother complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and ot hers, such as state governments, have implemented risk mitigation measures including r equirements for the use of additional personal protective equipment, revised re

- entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or

withdra wn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, pesticide product formulation changes and other factors may have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the rele vant 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 applied to

current use patterns

.

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 life exposures may occur from pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pesticide applicators , workers, or

h andlers and brought into the home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or a n agricultural worker may bring pesticide residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 4 .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 studi es 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 there are also instances in which there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide exposure (beyond those that can be modeled using aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment practices). The WPS rule changes are de signed to protect against agricultural worker

or handler exposures even when the current state of the science does not support action on

individual chemicals.

I n this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from

pe sticide exposure . These include possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes , and respiratory problems like asthma

. These

illnesses are selected for discussion here because they have been associated with pesticide

exposures in studies that meet EPA ’s data quality standards, and due to e ither the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesi zed link, the number of studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but,

due to the stat e of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, estimates of

the quantitative benefits from the final rule are not possible

.162

A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from reduced chronic expo sure is presented in Section 4. 8.



### 4.6.1 Cancer Risks

Although o nly a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer

- review bodies , t here is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites

, with plausible biological mechanisms identified through experimental toxicology studies. M any studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. While it is premature to

state there is a causal association between the studied occupational pesticide exposure s and cancer, EPA presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic health effects of pesticide exposure.

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

articles and meta

- analytic results indicate an association between various pesticide exposure s 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 occupa tional exposure (Bassil et
al ., 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ; Van Maele et al ., 2011, Wigle

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

section will discuss some of the eviden ce for the possible connection between pesticide exposure

and these cancer effects.

Blair and Beane

- Freeman (2009) provides a review 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 reduced 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 importance of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than pesticide exp osures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those engaged in agriculture relative to the general population (Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009).

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and can cers 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 farmworker s specifically, cancers of the cervix and

stomach at higher rates than the general population have also been noted (Mills et al.

, 2009).

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increas ed. For example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide163

exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997).

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between 1973 and 1990, a time period

coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell

and Eriksson , 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu

and Blair 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly as a result of pesticide exposure; however

, this link is not known with certainty at this time. Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the gen eral population, Koutros, et al . (2010 a ) 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 (Eriksson et al ., 20 08). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers ; however additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the risk of these cancers.

In a review 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 among those whose parents used insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those whose mothers were 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 Bass il 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 associa tions and 8 of those associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to pesticide s, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where pesticides were used most days for professional hom e extermination, when children had direct postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated

risks were reported from several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007).

Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review o f studies investigating links between occupational exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers ’ children. They found no evidence of a direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they do report an
association betw een a mother’s occupational exposure to insecticides and pesticides in general and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for mothers working on

farm s and with other significant related exposures.

Prostate Cancer

For deca des, 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 ha ve 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 with164

members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 a ). 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 follow

up within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007;

Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with exposure to certain pesticide s varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently rele ased indicate that a genetic variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 b )

. T hese genetic variations do not fully explain the cancer relationships within a fam ily, so other shared environmental exposures may play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published to date , results are not consistent, possibly due to differing study designs used.

In investigations of farmworker populations, prostate 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 th e 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 four 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

. H owever
, the study is supportive of previous work concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in

the AHS.

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 r isk 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).165



### 4.6.2 Non

- Cancer Health Effects

Many epidemiolog ical studies have reported associations between non

- cancer chronic health problems and 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 outc omes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease and general neurological health (discussed below)

. To the extent that the changes to the WPS reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of

these chronic health effects as well.

Neurolog ical Function

The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease has spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al . (2007), investigated the hypothesis

that Parkinson’s disease is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997

and contacted for a follow

- up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association

of Parkinson’s dis ease in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with Parkinson’s disease for those who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days

of use was associated with a dose

- response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no association with a dose

- response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has recently been updated with physician

- diagnosed cases of Parkinson’s disease, as opposed to participant self

- reportin g, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5

- fold increased odds of Parkinson’s disease if participants used two specific pesticides (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 association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between Parkinson’s disease and past exposures of pesticides on the job.”

Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non

- cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found most (39/41) studies displayed a n increase in one or more neurol ogical abnormalities in association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al . (2007), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides.

Research on the neurological effe cts 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 and neurological effects in children

th rough the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et al ., 2011) reviews the possible166

relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological

symptoms. Despite the associations reported in the reviewed literature, t he authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of action, amo ng other study characteristics.

Respiratory Function

Several studies have shown associations between pesticide exposure and 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 attacks is a lifelong problem, and several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al

. (2008) reported an association between 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 agricultura l pesticide exposure to families, 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 pesti cides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with early onset asthma. An i nternational study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory sympto ms.

C hronic bronchitis is an inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes it difficult to breathe for month s 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 association that was stronger among those with a high pesticide exposure event.



### 4.6.3 Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

Overall, the epidemiological or human study data discussed in the previous two sections do not

support a clear cause

- effect relation between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic

health outcomes . However , the totality of the research results showing positive associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes in conjunction with plausible biological hypotheses, taken together, indicates that pesticide exposure may result in chronic adverse health effects beyond those identified through a review of incidents involving acute

illness.



### 4.7 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

The 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 be nefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 4. 6 above). In167

general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and chronic illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify the expect ed health benefits of specific risk mitigation measures for use in a benefits analysis . The totality of findings reasonably support the conclusion that the WPS changes can reduce overall agricultural pesticide exposure that poses chronic health risks to workers, applicators, and their families

.

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 important 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 , 2011 ). Non

- Hodgkins lymphoma is a cancer that starts in the immune system, with sym ptoms of s wollen 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 human cost of illness mentioned in the previous paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 20 05). NHL treatment costs have been estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower

growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. , 2006 ) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half years of the study was over $42 ,500 (Wilson et al. , 2006 ). These costs are very high, especially so relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs only , which is likely

a n 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.



### 4.8 Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

In this section, EPA presents a “break

- even” analysis as a means of comparing the costs of the WPS revisions to its reasonably expected benefits . This analysis shows that preventing a very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits and the estimated costs of the rule. As described below, prev enting 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 quantified168

estimate of benefits fr om reduced acute incidents . The break

- even number of illnesses avoided is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we co nsider non

Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease

, and asthma to demonstrate the potential benefits in the rule from reducing chronic illnesses. These are the

illnesses for which there is credible evidence of an a ssociation with pesticide exposure and for which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer

- reviewed literature or for which willingness to pay estimates m ay be transferred from other diseases

.



### 4.8.1 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 rule. The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from reduced

chronic il lness would need to be in order f or the total annual benefits of chronic illness reduction to equal the cost of the rule . A break

- even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are lacking (OMB, 2003 ). Although we cannot quantify net benefi ts of chronic disease avoided, we can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes in order

for the benefits of the rule to equal the cost . This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also be a useful step t o 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 the 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, 2011; EPA, 2010 b ; EPA, 2006 c ; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break

- even analyses were based on prevented

i llness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to the analysis here . These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestina l distress as a result of bacterial

contamination of water. The break

- even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide exposure and chronic disease (see Section 4.6 ).

The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily estimated. However, environmental 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 4.6 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will likely accrue a s a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS.

Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are

unabl e to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are ind irect, i.e. , they influence behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have169

been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 4.6 , the causal nature of these associations have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease outcomes in the population ( i.e. , there is a multi

- factorial web of disease causation) ; however

, it is plausible that some instances of disease (specific ca ses) could be attributable to pesticide exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers and their families. Relative to other studies of the effects of occupational exposure to chemicals,

studies based on fa rmworkers 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 hist ory is also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on available application data (Zahm et al ., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993).

In Section 4. 6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors r eport
statistical associations 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 certified pesticide applicato rs and their spouses initiated in the early 1990s. The study is recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively validated. Because of these characteristics and strengths, it is appropriate

to rely on the re sults and findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. EPA has been systematically evaluating this study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators with respect to algorithms, exposure assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound scientific principles for evidence of causation. The work products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented hav e been well received by recent Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that past and current exposures diffe r from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additional information outside of any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real

- world exposure potential. Th e reported associations suggested in the cited epidemiology studies 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 w orker protection standard

.



### 4.8.2 Method

For the acute illness 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 prevented for the benefits to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausi ble for the farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate170

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 4. 6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic,

non

- specific pesticide exposure , although although causality has not been proven to a scientific certainty. For this brea k

- even exercise, however, we will consider only a few of the illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma.

It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies ha ve 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.

To estimate t he break

- even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on disease incidence, which describes how many cases of specific disease s can be expected to be diagnosed each year.

Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure consists of four components:

 “Averting c osts” 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 cost s 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 W TP 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 farmwork ers. 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 subj ects. 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 involves apply ing available estimates of WTP for preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed.171

For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL).

EPA uses a default central “v alue of statistical life” (VSL) of $ 9

. 5 million (in 20 12 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010) , updated from $7.9 million in 2008 dollars to 2012 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index.

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 ( P revShare )

times the number of cases:

C h ronic Benefits = ∑

ω i ∙ PrevCases i

i = ∑

ω i ∙ PrevS h are i ∙ Cases i

i

where ω i can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the break

even 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 th e estimated cost ( Cost ) and the estimated acute benefits ( Acute ):

C h ronic BE ≥ Cost

− Acute

.

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 ac ute benefits, Chronic BE . A simplifying assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage reduction in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of lung cancer is smoki ng 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 Canc er 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).



### 4.8.3 Data

To perform the break

- even analysis described in the previou s 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 3 and the quantified acute benefits of the rule were

estimated in Section 4. 5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly available. Estimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimat e for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used in the analysis are summarized in Table 4. 8

- 1.172

Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annual ly 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 $ 5.5 m illion was derived in the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 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 $ 9

. 5 million, we

estimate a mean WTP for non

- fatal lymphoma of $ 5.5 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, 201 5 ), 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 Society (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740

cases i n 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group,

201 5 ). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,00 0 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 g eneral population (Alavanja et
al ., 2003; Koutros et al ., 2010 a)

.

An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid 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 . (2 006) 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 just under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non

Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma yields an estimate of WT P to avoid prostate cancer of $94 0,000.

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate canc er that may be low, in comparison to several new treatment and drug regimes for prostate cancer that are very expensive. Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more aggressive and require more expensive treatmen t than those found in elderly men.173

Chronic Bronchitis

Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long

- term cough, shortness of breath,

excessive mu cous, 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 , but only 639 deaths per

year (CDC, 2012a)

. These figure s are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a diagnosis 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 di sease, rather than new cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using the prevalence would be misleading, so for this analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This approach ignores the impact that chronic bronchitis and the resulting reduced lung function that can have important impacts on the quality of life. P ast EPA economic analysis has provided

estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economi c Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide estimates of the WTP of $800,000 in 2003 dollars to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991) , but we are only considering reduced deaths caused by bronchitis here.

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation

, 201 0 ). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than the general po pulation and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14 th leading cause of

death in the United States 10 , 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

, 201 1 ; and University of Maryland Medical Center 20 13 ). 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 use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for Parkinson’s disease, because in s ome ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. For Parkinson’s disease,t he

WTP is $1,000,000 in 2012 dollars, which is WTP of $800,000 in 2003 dollars to avoid chronic

bron chitis updated to 2012 dollars

.

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 for curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a non

-

10 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Cente rs for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et
al ., 2010).174

canc er disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for es timating WTP for avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about $3 .7 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $ 1,0 00,000 here. Moreover, possible fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not incl uded 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 (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2015 )

. 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 f rom lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Sect ion 4. 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 hav e large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, which is smoking.

There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer

reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the pra ctice 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 ($ 1,000 ,000) used f or 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) 11

.

Asthma

Atopic asthma, in which an external t rigger, 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 (CDC, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and asthma incidents do not

11 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 rang es from $220,000 to $950,000 and for the latent disease the estimates range from $40,000 to $2.36 million. This study is not yet published and therefore the results are used here for illustrative purposes only. Hammitt and Liu (2004) provide estimates fo r WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a Taiwanese population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute. Because the

estimates are for a non

- US population they are also used here for illustrative purposes only . Finally, Itaoka, et al. (2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working paper and therefore illustrative only.175

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 (CDC, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 4 80 ,000 annually, which is the rounded number of

new cases from 2001

– 2009 divided by nine years. Asthma attacks c an also be fatal

– in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma (CDC, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this analysis.

The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount

rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $ 3

, 1 00 (updated to 2012 dollars) to a perpetuity to represent preventing development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $ 105 ,000 per case 12

.

Table 4. 8

- 1. Information for Calculatin g Break

- Even Number of Cases Avoided

Disease WTP to Avoid Disease, ω i ($1000) Annual Cases from

All Causes

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 5

, 500 49,000

Fatal NHL 9

, 5 00 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 940 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 9

, 5 00 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 1,0 00 60,000 Curable Lung Cancer 1,0 00 36,000 Fatal Lung Cancer 9

, 5 00 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 9

, 5 00 640

Asthma 105 480,000

Fatal Asthma 9

, 5 00 3,400

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (201 5 ); Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); CDC, (2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations



### 4.8.4 Break

- Even Estimation

In Chapter 3 , the costs of changes to the WPS were estimated to range from $41.5 to $81.0 million, with a primary estimate of $60.2 to $66.9 million. 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 analy sis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates

benefits of at least the difference between the high

- end value of the primary cost estimate ($ 66.9 million) and estimated acute benefits of $ 2.6 million , for a difference between estimated costs

and quantified benefits of $ 64.3 million.

Reducing the national rate of these selected illnesses by 0.00 5 % (and the rate of lung cancer by

0.000 5 %) would be more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close the high estimate of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness

12 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (201 1) provide more recent estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP.176

would have an estimated benefit of $ 64.4 million dollars annually. The break

- even target would obviously change based on assumptions about under

- reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits estimate would be about $ 260,000 (See Table 4.5

– 11). In that case, a slightly larger reduction of 0.00 52 % (0.000 52% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $ 66.9 million in benefits is equal to the high

- end primary cost estimate

.

Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.00 5 % would reduce the

number of non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma ca ses by an average of 2.5 non

- fatal and 1. 1 fatal cases per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 1 1.2 non

- fatal and 1.5 fatal cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.0 per year; reduce the number of fatal bronchitis

cases by 0.0 3 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 24.0 cases, and fatal asthma cases by 0.2 0 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the reduction in other diseases, or 0.000 5 %

, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average of 0. 18 non

- fatal

cases and 0.95 fatal cases per year.

Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a m uch smaller population, farmworkers and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break

- even chronic benefits will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population,

which we describe below.

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and

disease described above and in Section 4. 5. However, we do not make that assumption in this analysis for simplicity and to ensure that this analysis does not overestimate benefits. Instead,

we assume that worker s and handler face illness equal to their share of the population. The share

is about 0. 6 5%, based on the 1,995,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 308,700,000 ( US Census Bureau, 201 3 ). 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

illn esses of just under 0.78 % (0. 078 % for lung cancer), will generate $ 64.9 million in benefits

, more than required to reach the break

- even point . Across all diseases, the reduction is about 45 cases annually out of over 7,000 cases that might occur . Table 4

. 8

- 2 shows the calculations for

farmworker cases. The “Annual Cases

– Farmworkers” is 0. 6 5% of the annual cases for the United States, and the “‘ Break

- Even ’ Avoided Cases ” is the number of cases that would have to be prevented as a result of changes to th e WPS needed reach the breakeven point

. In dollar terms the $64.9 million per year to break even represents an a nnual WTP per farmworker of

about $ 32.177

Table 4. 8

- 2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break

- Even” Analysis

Disease Annual

Cases Incidenc e

(per 100,000) 1 Annual Cases

–

Farmworkers 2 “Break

- Even”

Avoided Cases

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 317 2.47

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 136 1.06

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 144.5 1,441 11.24

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 187 1.46

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 388 3.02 Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 2 33 0. 18 3
Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1, 228 0

. 96 3

Fatal Bronchitis 640 0.2 4 0.03

Asthma 480,000 155.5 3, 102 24.20

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 2 2 0. 17

Source: EPA calculations.

1 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census Bureau,

201 3 ).

2 Based on incidence rates for farmworkers being equal to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence rates may be higher; see the text.

3 Rate of Reduction for lung cancer is only 10% of the reduction rate for other illnesses; in this case a reduction of 0.078% for lung cancer and 0.78% for the other diseases

The next, essential step is to consider whether the number of cases required for the break

- even analysis is a plausible outcome of the WPS revisions . As discussed above Table 4. 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 4. 6, credible, peer

- reviewed studies show

statistical association s between the diseases discussed here and p esticide exposure, so workers

and handlers exposed to pesticides appear to be more likely to develop these diseases than the general public . The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach

the break

- even point, even if rate s 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 applicators and their spouses. This cohort is healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite differ ent: 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. Far mworkers 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 differenc es 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.178

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 13 . 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

l ikely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence

rates shown in Table 4. 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 incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 case s per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect about 1, 643 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 eliminated with a 0.78 % reduction among farmworkers is 11.24 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to

reduce the risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 11.24 cases annually would require a

reduction in the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163. 58 , still 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 2 14 cases per year. The break

- even number

of cases is about 1. 46 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 populat ion. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010 a ) report a standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would

be about 18. 57 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.47 cases annually would change the

incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.4 5 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases

a mong farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7. 91 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 Mark 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. 4 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 rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for those with any pesticide exposu re relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence

13 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent studies (Koutros, et al ., 2010a), but we use the

more conservative figures from Alavanja et al . here.179

rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be

abo ut 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 .0 to about 22 5.8 per 100,000, while th e fatal

asthma incidence rate would remain within rounding error of 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 i s 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 exceptio ns 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 a t 60% higher in association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, but does not compare them to a non

- agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS parti cipants who have ever faced a high pesticide exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those may not reflect the low

level chronic exposure relevant for the break

- even analysis. However, if we assume the

farmworker rate is even 1 .5 % 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 above the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other

dise ases 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 0.0 78 % ( only 10% of the reduction for other diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.0 3 per 100,000 for fatal lung cancer.

In sum , the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and quantified

acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to farmworkers.

There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break

- even analysis is necessary. Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in t he 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 disc ussed here are chronic conditions 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% discoun t rate
means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.78 % to 0.96 %. At a 7% discount rate,

the reduction to reach the break

- even point would reach 1. 18 %.180



### 4.8.5 Break

- Even Conclusions

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 44 pesticide

- rela ted chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS occupational population of two million workers and handlers is all that is required to ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS.181



## Chapter 5 . Paperwork Burden

Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or

oth erwise 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, “ Agricultural Worker Protecti on Standard Training and Notification (Final Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.0 2 ; OMB Control No. 2070

- 0190 ), in conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic Analysis. See Appendix B.

The total estimated annual re spondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 10,448,160

hours. This is an increase of 8,620,667 from the 1,827,493 total burden hours in the ICR approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070

- 0148

. The increase in burden is due to both program cha nges 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 entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased h azard communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); provisions for information during emergency assistance ; and recordkeeping requirements for respirator and training requirements . Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made wher e appropriate, due to better information available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates and to more fully account for activities required under the WPS.

The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all fi nal revisions and those that are unchanged by this rule . This differs from the estimated incremental

cost of the final rule, estimated in the Economic Analysis , which only considers the net cost of

the 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 final rule imposes any requirements on the Agency.182



## Accounting Statement

Rule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions



### Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate Source

BENEFITS

Monetized Benefits

 Monetized Benefits from Avoided acute pesticide

incidents $527,000

– 2.5 million annually $53,000 annually $4.9 million annually EA Chapter 4.5

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

.

 Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure

.

 Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families. EA Chapter 4.4, 4.5,

4.7

 Break

- even analysis of

the reduced effects of chronic pesticide

exposure  Annual chronic benefits necessary to break

- even $6 3.8 million

.

 Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break

- even point : less than 0. 92 % among farmworkers.

 Annual break

- even WTP per farmworker : less than $ 32

. EA Chapter 4.8



### COSTS

Monetized Costs  $ 5 28 to $5 8 7 million over 10 years at 3%

discount rate

 $ 60.2 to $ 6 6.9 million/year $ 4 1.5 to $ 4 7.0 million/year $ 72 .6 to $8 1

. 0 million/year EA Chapter 3 .3

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs



### TRANSFERS none183 Category Effects Source

State, local, and/or tribal

governments None. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement but revisions will not change level of effort although it may change how

resources are spent

.

Small business No significant impact on a substantial number of small entitie s.

 The rule will affect approximately 295 ,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entit i es that are contracted to apply pesticides.

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

average small entity. EA Chapter 3. 5

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

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $ 5 /year.

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

inc rease by $ 5 0 , but this is about 0. 2 percent of the cost of a part

- time employee. EA Chapter 3 .4184



## References

Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, Ismail AA, Effects

of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides, NeuroToxicology 29 (2008) 833

– 838

Affordable Safety Training. 2015. On

- Line Respirator Medical Screening. http://www.affordablesafetytraining.com/respmeq.html

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C B ailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012. Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001

– 2010. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. At http://www.cdc.gov/nc hs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study co hort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 1;157(9):800

- 14.

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, 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 Epide miol, 160:876

- 85.

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.

American Cancer Society. 2012. Cancer Facts a nd Figures 2012. Available here: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/docum ent/acspc

- 031941.pdf

Andreotti G, L Beane

- Freeman, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. Int J Cancer

124:2495

– 2500.

Arcury TA, JG Grzywacz, DB Barr, J Tapia, H Chen, and SA Quandt. 2007. Pesticide Urinary

Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households.

Envir on 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.185

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness

surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public Health, 92: 1421

– 1429.

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journa l of Public Health Policy, Summer:9(2).

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educational intervention to prevent pesticide

induced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul ;19(1):123

- 5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704

- 11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Res idential

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 a pplicators 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., and L Beane

- Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125

– 131.

Blair, A. , DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology, 15(4), 279

- 285.

Blomquist, GC, M Dickie, RM O’Conor. 2011. Willingness to pay for improv ing 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. 2013a. Current Population Survey: Median weekly earnings of full

- time wage and salary

worker s by detailed occupation and sex. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

BLS. 2013b. Current Population Survey: Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work. Bureau of L abor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf

BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age, including median age. Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm, accessed June 2014.

BLS. 2014b. National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

htt p://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed March, 2015.186

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 c hildren, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189

- 95.

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270

- 7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and after delivery in women living in an agricultura l community. Environ. Health Perspect.

113 12 1802

- 1807.

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, BC Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, and TE McKone. 2007. Pesticides and their

metabolites in the homes and urine of farmworker children living in Salinas Valley. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiology 17 (4) 331

- 349,

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2 009.

"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, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Cu rry, 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

Calabro, K, K Bright, and K Kouzekanani. 2000. Long

- term Effectiveness of Infection Control Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, (2000): 1

- 7.

Calvert GM, 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 pes ticide 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 Johnson. 2009. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk Reductions: Differences by Type of I llness, 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. 2012a. Chro nic 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, 2012.187

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/m m6017a4.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

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and A ssistance, Subpart A

– Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13.

Chafee

- Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Ho spitals' Use of a Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983):

396

- 400.

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non

- Hodgkin's lymphoma. JAgromedicine. 2009;14(2):250

- 5. Review. PubMed PM ID: 19437285;

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male participants in the Agricultural Health S tudy (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 118(1):92

- 6.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142

- 147.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work

- Related Pesticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center. Available here, with more

recent data available in the docket: http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/Occupatio nalHealth/OccupationalHealth Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/.

Curl CL, RA Fenske, JC Kissel, JH Shirai, TF Moate, W Griffith, et al. 2002. Evaluation of

take

- home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their

children. Environ Health Pers pect 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, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non

farmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307

- 315188

D&B. 2014. Database of business information main tained by Hoover’s Inc., a Dun and Bradstreet Company. http://www.hoovers.com/.

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide

- related illness among migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303

- 312.

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.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Worker s 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.do leta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

DoL. 2011

- 2012 NAWS data

- public set. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm#d

- files. Retrieved April 24 2015.

Duffy, M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa. Iowa State University E xtension and Outreach publication FM

- 1712, revised January. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1

- 20.pdf.

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. 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.

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/factshee ts/kidpesticide.htm

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. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standards. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Document ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327

- 0024; Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. What Employers N eed 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 (46 06

- M)

EPA 815

- R

- 06

- 014 October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf189

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A vailable here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10

- finalrpt.pdf.

EPA. 2008. Child

- Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

. September 2008

. http://ofmpub. epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=484738

EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA. 2010 b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of Water (4607

- M) EPA 815

- R

- 10

- 001 June 2010. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis f or 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

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk fac tor for

non

- Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 123(7):1657

- 63 Oct 1.

ERS. 2014. Farm Labor, Number and Geographical Distribution of Hired Farmworkers. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Updated October 30. http://ers.usda.gov/topics/farm

- economy/farm

- labor/background.aspx#Numbers.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT Holland. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposur e 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 expos ure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican

- American children. Health Perspect. 115:792

– 798.

Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Gempler’s. 2014. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com. Accessed

October/November 2014.

Gempler’s. 2015. Space saving dispenser, product and prices. http://www.gemplers.com/product/WEB28812/Space

- saving

- Dispensers#TAB

- INFO. Accessed March, 2015.

Giles, K , and R Billing. 2013. Designs and Improvements in Closed Systems. Report to K Everett, Pesticide Enforcement Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulations, California. 13pp.

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives

, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355

- 362.190

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.

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 n onatopic 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.

Pesticid e use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am

J Ind Med 50:969

– 979.

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z,Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975

- 2011, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/

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

ht tp://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 Aka i. 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag: Choice Experiments for Public

- and Private

- Goods Contexts in Japan, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF

- DP

- 07

- 07

- REV.pdf.

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umb ach, 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, LE Beane

- Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate cancer. Cancer Res, 70(22):9224

- 33.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE

B eane

- Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098

- 105.191

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/2 3171882.

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ Health. 22(1):14

- 26, Feb.

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs

associated with non

- Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535

- 1544.

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17

- Issue 6

- pp S311

- S312, Nov.

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781

– 1791.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide use and colorectal cancer risk in the Agri cultural 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 A pr 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

Ja n;101(1):63

- 70

Magat, W.A., W.K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1996. A Reference Lottery Metric for Valuing Health. Management Science. 42:1118

- 1130.

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;121(8):1799

- 805.

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

Mehler, Louise, Marc B. Schenker, Patrick S. Romano, and Steven J. Samuels. California

Surveillance for Pesticide

- Related Illness and Injury. Journal of Agromedicine. 11(2)

2006.192

Mills PK and R Yang. 2006a. Regression analysis of pesticide use and breast cancer incidence

in California Latinas. J Environ Health. 2006 Jan

- Feb;68(6):15

- 22

Mills PK and R Yang. 2006b. Agricultural exposures and gastric cancer risk in Hispanic farm workers in California. Environ Res. 2007 Jun;104(2) :282

- 9. Epub 2006 Dec 29.

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ

Med. 45:249

- 258.

Mills PK, Dodge J and R Yang. 2009. Cancer in migrant and seasonal hired farm workers. J Agromedicine. 2009;14(2).

NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 2010. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 22. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Updated February 2010. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/.

NASS. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultur al Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. May 2014. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/.

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/non

hodgkin

- lymphoma.pdf.

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011.

Nationa l Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exp osure 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/Ap ple_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.nww inc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program.

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

- 4.193

Orr, KM and L Mehler (2000). Physician Reporting of Pesticide Illnesses, Part 1. Mass Mailing and Personal Notifications, 1994

– 1996. Health & Safety Report Worker Health and Safety Branch HS

- 1781. March 20, 2000.

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms Accessed August 4, 2011.

Parkinson's Disease Foundation. 2010. Statistic s on Parkinson's, website: http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics

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 Moth ers' Perceptions of Risk to Their Children's Health, Health

Educ Behav 2007 34: 335

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 Agri cultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196

– 1201.

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 F irst 3 Years of Life Among Inner

- City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845

- e1859

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of

Work Pr actices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314

– 320.

Roberts, JR, and JR Reigert. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Sixth Edition, available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- worker

- safety/recognition

- and

management

- pesticide

- poisonings

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: H ealth Insurance Coverage and Access to Care, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available here: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Migrant

- and

- Seasonal

- Farmworkers

- Health

Insurance

- Coverage

- and

- Access

- to

- Care

- Report.pdf

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159

- 169.

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injur ies and Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20

- 32.194

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu

- Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and Children's Health Study, Early

- life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from

the Children's Health S tudy. 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.n lm.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 Sympto ms 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.

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 1996. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249

- 272.

Stein berg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69

- 74, Feb.

Strong LL, B Thompson, TD Koepsell, and H Meischke. 2008. Factors associated with pesticide safety practices in farmwor kers. Am J Ind Med. 51(1):69

- 81, Jan.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW ., Rotenone, paraquat, and Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866

- 72.

Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year. April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax

- freedom

- day

- 201 3

- april

- 18

- five

- days

later

- last

- year

Thun MJ, Hannan LM, Adams

- Campbell LL, Boffetta P, Buring JE, Feskanich D, et al. (2008) Lung Cancer Occurrence in Never

- Smokers: An Analysis of 13 Cohorts and 22 Cancer Registry Studies. PLoS Med 5(9): e185. http://jou rnals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050185

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

- 41.195

U.S. C ancer Statistics Working Group. 2015. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999

– 2011 Incidence and Mortality Web

- based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer

Institute. Ava ilable at:www.cdc.gov/uscs.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, CPH

- 1

- 1, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Issued January. Available here: http://www.census.gov /prod/cen2010/cph

- 1

- 1.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government

U

. S

. National Library of Medicine, 2012 . Medline Plus: Chronic B ronchitis. Available here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/chronicbronchitis.html

University of Florida. 2008

- 09. Interactive Budgets, Vegetables. University of Florida. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php.

University of Maryland Med ical Center. 2013. Parkinson's disease, website: available here: http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/parkinsons

- disease

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler, and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronc hitis among non

- smoking farm women in the agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results. Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295350/pdf/ehp.1103881.pdf

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. "Interpret ation and Uses of Data Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389

- 97.

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289

- 9 9.

Viscusi, W.K.,W.A. Magat, and J. Huber. 1991. Pricing Environmental Health Risks: Survey

Assessments of Risk

- Risk and Risk

- Dollar Trade

- Offs for Chronic Bronchitis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 21

Washington State Department of L abor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data. Olympia, WA: Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24

- 2

- 1991, 1991.

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: 18368555196

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta

- analysis of

childhood le ukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:1505

- 1513.

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 Pr ostate Cancer Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21.

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.

Xu, J. and KD Kochanek, SL Murphy, B Tejada

- Vera, B.S. Deaths: Final Data for 2007,

National Vital Statistics Reports. Volume 58, Number 19. Available here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf"

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park , D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi

- center Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85

- 92.

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE

F urlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199

– 209

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among Hispanic Adol escents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49

- 53.

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, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "P esticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes and Control 8.3 (1997): 420

- 33.

Zahm, SH, JS Colt, LS Engel, MC Keifer, AJ Alvarado, K Burau, P Butterfield, S Caldera, SP Cooper, D Garcia, C Hanis, E Hendrikson, N Heyer, LM Hunt, M Krauska, N MacNaughton, CJ McDonnel l, 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, and MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 Suppl 3:893

- 908, June.