*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

RIN2070-AJ20_EO12866_AgWPS_FRM_EA_FinalRedline_AllRevisions_2015-09-28.docx

Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.

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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... vi

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 Pesticide Safety .........................................................12

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.........................................................................................................29
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

ii

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 Protective 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..........................................................................129
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

iii

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 ................................................................................................................................................184

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... vi

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 Pesticide Safety .........................................................12
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

iv

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.........................................................................................................29

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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

v

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

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 ................................................................................................................................................184
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

vi

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER 

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Executive 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 final 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. Their 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 

overexposure to pesticides can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects such as 

headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory 

depression and loss of consciousness. In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in 

death. Occupational incidents are probably indicative of a larger number of cases where 

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 potentially severe, including neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several 

forms of cancer.

Market Failure

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: 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 undesirable amounts or kinds of use for a given pesticide that result in negative 

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

develop and 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 risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 

to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

vii

(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 unavoidable 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 total 

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. Costs recur each year andThe cost stream is 

expected to be constant or nearly constant; as a result, the choice of discount rate doeswill 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 the 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 approximately 2,000 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are 

contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost of about $1.9 million per 

year. Farms relying solely on family labor that use pesticides may collectively bear costs of 

about $1.4 million per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per year 

per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced illness from exposure to pesticides, are likely to 

exceed $67 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 total 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. Much 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 there 

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 $41.5 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 employees 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 mechanized 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 than 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

viii

0.1 percent of average annual revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the 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. EPA 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 $530 to $565, 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

Farms, Owner 

and Immediate 

Family 

Farmslabor

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 $230-565

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 $50 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, the revised rule is expected to substantially reduce the 

potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to 

pesticides, and provide them with information and tools to reduce the transport of pesticide 

residues home. 

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 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 suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health 

through reduced acute and chronic illness. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

ix

Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents

Based on analysis of reported pesticide illnesses, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide 

incidents where the WPS applies would have been prevented by the rule. The value of avoided 

medical and productivity losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $58,000 

and $260,000 million annually (see Table 2). However, this estimate 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 diagnosed 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 quantifiable benefits of the rule 

would be about $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

 $575,000 – 2,603,000 /year

after adjustment for 

underreporting of pesticide 

incidents.

 $58,000 – 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 the 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 healthcare, a 

healthier society and better quality of life.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

x

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 families 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 children are also 

impossible to quantify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, including the fetal stage, 

reducing exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of 

school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long-term health. There are 

benefits to parents and caregivers as well, because healthier families, means fewer missed 

workdays, and a better quality of life.

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

Category Description Comment

Qualitative benefits 

from reduced effects of 

chronic pesticide 

exposure to workers, 

handlers, and 

farmworker families

A range of illnesses are associated with 

chronic pesticide exposure, including

 Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

 Prostate Cancer

 Parkinson’s Disease

 Lung Cancer

 Chronic Bronchitis

 Asthma 

Break-even analysis for 

only these illnesses 

shows that, if the final

rule changes prevent a 

relatively small number 

of cases, then the total 

benefits of the rule would 

outweigh the costs. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER 

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Chapter 1. Introduction

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. 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 take-home pesticide exposure. 

Some revisions 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 revisions to the worker protection rule that was first codified 

in 1974 and revised in 1992.

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

WPS. This section provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, describes 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 

revisions 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 Reduction 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 Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, requires 

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

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

certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking. The Worker Protection 

Standard regulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and employers of 

commercial 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 regulation is intended to 

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety 

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

applicators, agricultural employees, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, 

such as children. This economic analysis focuses on the revisions to the WPS rule.

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

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

employees who work directly with agricultural pesticides, e.g., mixing, loading, and applying

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, pesticide 

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

or water on the farm or other operation. Without regulations such as the WPS, workers may 

have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be exposed or 

even if they are exposed.

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

required protections to their employees: agricultural employers, (e.g., owners and managers of 

farms, greenhouses, nurseries and forestry operations), and commercial employers (e.g., owners 

and managers of commercial pesticide handling establishments ) 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 pesticide 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 requirements 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 exposure 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

3

incidents occur annually on establishments where WPS requirements apply (more detail is 

provided in Chapter 4). Many 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. Chronic 

exposure to pesticides can have adverse effects, as documented in EPA 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). Exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute 

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

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

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

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

depression and loss of consciousness (Roberts and Reigart, 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; Roberts 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 incidents 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 nonagricultural 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 the 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 (about 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 illness 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

4

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

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

the home, where pesticides have been transported 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 

important 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 pesticides 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 (see 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 reducing general pesticide exposure. 

Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic 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 tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in 

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

al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele-Fabry 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, 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 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 pesticide exposures and cancers of the 

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

5

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

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

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills et al., 2009).

1.2.3 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 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 role for government intervention to protect workers and 

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

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

pesticide exposure.

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 information 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 appropriate action.

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

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

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

contact with pesticides or in pesticide-treated 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 face given immediate priorities such as providing for their families and 

obtaining or retaining their jobs. These issues can result in workers and handlers with 

insufficient information to make informed choices about their safety. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 can result in a divergence between 

the social and private costs of using a pesticide.

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

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

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

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

are not readily observable because they occur 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 requirements 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 occupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to 

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

pesticides over the course of their working life. 

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

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

jobs. 

 Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than nonagricultural workers. Children and adolescents 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 Agricultural Worker Survey 

(NAWS), 64 percent of agricultural workers in the United States were born in Mexico and six 

percent in Central and South America (DoL, 2011-2012). A majority (69 percent) of all survey 

respondents speaks Spanish as their primary language. Approximately 65 percent of this 

population speaks a little or no English; 38 percent cannot not read English at all and another 30 

percent can only read English “a little.” Many have received only limited formal education; 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 provided 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 (Kandel, 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, 2011-2012). Over 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 workers 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 plants and hire workers or 

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

include family farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses 

providing crop advisory services. State agencies, which are responsible for enforcing the WPS

and often provide training for workers and handlers, will also be impacted by the revisions to 

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

8

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

The current rule is intended to protect workers 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 health 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 directly 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 them, 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 (CPHEs). Within each type, 

we further distinguish between those who are self-employed (e.g.,relying on the owner and the 

immediate family farm)for labor and 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 

information.

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 establishments involved in plant agriculture. These include farms, 

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

agricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

9

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

The WPS also covers self-employed handlers, such as the operator of a farm or an immediate 

family farmmember who applies pesticides.

Just under one million U.S. establishments used pesticides as part of the production system 

(NASS, 2014). 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 while the rest are solely livestock operations. Of those, EPA estimates over 

354,000 farms also hired labor, leaving approximately 518,000 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 label.

The WPS, 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 to use pesticides, 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 farms 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 with 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 impact forestry operations.

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

EPA 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, affected by 

revisions to the requirements. Approximately 5,000 firms were identified under the North 

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 115112, 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 be 

employed in the commercial firms identified above, that there are about 42,000 small or selfemployed handlers providing commercial services to the agricultural sector. See Chapter 3.2.3

for detail.

1.4 Overview of Final Regulation

EPA is finalizing revisions 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 detail. 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 designed 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. Together, these 

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 application. 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 pertain to the provision of 

decontamination supplies and clarify existing requirements about providing 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).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 revised.

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 are 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 different 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 present 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.

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

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

entities.

1.5 Changes from the Analysis of Final Revisions

EPA previously 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 the 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 wage 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 well as additional information from pesticide incident surveillance programs.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

12

Chapter 2. Final Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

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 

additional details. Chapter 3 estimates the costs of the revisions 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 the changes that will better 

inform workers and handlers about protecting themselves from pesticide exposure, which 

comprise of three categories: training, hazard communication, and notification. The provisions 

that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in Section 2.3 and are 

divided into three categories: age requirements, restrictions on entry into a treated area, and 

personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to protect against exposure. The final section, 

2.4, addresses 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 changes and the rationale 

for the Agency’s decisions.

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

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

 protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural worker protection regulation 

and support activities; 

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

applicators; and 

 the national health care providers’ pesticide initiative. 

2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches

The Agency engages in extensive non-regulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, 

handlers, their families and the public from pesticide exposure and potential injury. To 

implement these programs, the Office of Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of 

partners including state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture (NIFA); university cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy 

groups; and the regulated community. 

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

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

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

a grant program to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

13

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

nationally, and internationally, the grantee works with a variety of partners (community-based 

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

experts, agricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop 

creative community-based action plans to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and 

outreach methods including: workshops, hands-on training, fact sheets, manuals, exams, Web, 

DVDs, and webinars.

EPA partners 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 farmworkers. 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 supports state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulates the competency of 

pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through grants to the cooperative 

extension 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 health care providers’

pesticide initiative, 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 recommends treatments based on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, 

EPA also works closely with the 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 tools 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 non-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 improve pesticide worker safety.

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

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

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

health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

14

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

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

assessments, including occupational risk assessments.

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

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

surfaces after the application has been completed. The requirements of the WPS complement the 

label by providing protections from this post-application exposure. It establishes 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 families, to 

provide supplies to be used to mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance 

in the case a worker or handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are 

generic, crossing all agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, 

efficiently, and consistently covered in regulation.

2.2 Informing 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 Notification 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 to 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

requirements 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, however, the WPS provides an exemption in the case that full 

training cannot be provided before each worker’s first entry into such areas; employers must 

provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information and full training must be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

15

complete before 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 workers may not be 

fully trained before engaging in hand labor. EPA estimates that nearly 100,000 workers do not 

receive the full safety training before entering fields recently treated with a pesticide. In the final 

rule, full training must be provided before the first entry, with no grace period permitted. With 

this change, workers will have the full information they need to protect themselves from 

pesticide exposure before engaging in hand labor activities in or near a treated area. In addition, 

it will prevent the possibility 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. Retention of pesticide 

safety information is expected to improve with annual training rather than with the existing fiveyear cycle. Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students 

performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in 

themselves and their patients. Ultimately, the changes will improve workers’ ability to protect 

themselves 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 qualified 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 reducing exposure 

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

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.

Full safety training before 6th 

day of entry into treated area. 

Training every 5 years. 

Untrained workers receive, at 

minimum, essential Right-toKnow information before 

entering a treated area.

Full safety training before 3rd day 

of field entry.

Annual training.

Untrained workers receive full 

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 which 

pesticides can enter body

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning

5. Emergency first aid for 

poisonings

6. Obtaining medical care

7. Decontamination 

procedures

8. Hazards from chemigation 

and drift

9. Hazards from residues on 

clothing

10. Warnings about taking 

pesticides or pesticide 

containers home

11. WPS requirements

Expand 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-thetrainer” 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 completed 

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

17

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

themselves 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 requirements. 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 enters the application exclusion zone, and separate training on respirator use, fittesting of respirators, 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 pesticides.

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 aid

6. Emergency medical care

7. Decontamination 

procedures

8. Personal Protective 

Equipment (PPE)

9. Heat-related illness issues

10. Safety requirements for 

handling, transporting, 

storing, and disposing of 

pesticides

11. Environmental concerns 

12. Warnings about taking 

pesticides or their 

containers home

13. Regulatory requirements 

of handling

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

Take home exposure

Early entry notification and age 

limit

Entry restricted area 

requirements

Requirements for respirator fit 

test, training and medical 

evaluation

Hazard information – SDS

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

18

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 been 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 then 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 employers 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 materials 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 materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker/handler

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

Verification of Training for Workers and Handlers

Voluntary program allows for 

training verification cards

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 handlers

or workers

2.2.2 Hazard Communication

The requirements in the final regulation on hazard communication pertain 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 requirements 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 particular exposure and the ability to seek out further information if the employee 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

19

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, the information must 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 ends but prior to any worker entering the treated area. This 

revision reduces the likelihood of inaccurate information being displayed, since changes may be 

made to a planned 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 date and time 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 area 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 standardized 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 information. 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 

the 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 immediately obvious, a longer 

retention period is useful.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 

available 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 or 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 application 

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 notification. 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 lastly, we discuss the requirements on information exchange between commercial 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

21

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 applications. 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 

same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for long REIs. Recall may 

be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers at the time of the 

application, but must also 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 REI 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 warning 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 

required by label
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

22

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, except 

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 information 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 area 

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 

worker 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 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 

worker has read or been 

informed of labeling related to 

human hazards, precautions, 

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

 Acknowledgement of 

notification by printed name 

and signature of workers

No requirements for record 

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

23

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 the 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 will 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 information 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 the information be displayed where 

decontamination 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 

times and in places 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 Display Requirements.

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information

Information on display includes 

decontamination information 

and self-protective practices

Decontamination information 

and self-protective practices 

and:

 State enforcement agency 

contact information 

 Medical facility contact 

information

Decontamination information 

and self-protective practices 

and:

 State enforcement agency 

contact information Medical 

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

24

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 information 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 revises the 

rule to reflect existing guidance. 

2.3 Protecting Workers and Pesticide Handlers

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

handlers from the exposure and potential adverse effects of pesticides. The provisions 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 existing, 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, loading, and applying; and 

entry into treated fields during the REI. Minimum age 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 cause 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 Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Final Requirement 1

No age restriction on person 

performing early entry activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

No age restriction on person 

performing handling activities

Employee must be 16 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 Chapters 1 and 4, studies have suggested that the adverse effects 

of pesticides may be greater on children and adolescents than for mature individuals because 

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

25

properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, adolescents may not follow all 

label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the potential impacts to themselves, 

others, and the environment.

EPA estimates that there are about 150,000 workers under the age of 18 within the total farm 

work force, with as many as 27,000 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely 

about 6,200 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 defined 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 limitations, such as and/or specifying 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 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 

the time a worker may be in the treated area. The final revisions 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 requires 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 respirator wearer, and medical evaluation for handlers who must use a 

respirator. This revision incorporates certain OSHA requirements that apply to workers in other 

industries and reduces the possibility of exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator 

training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 

when filters need replacement.

EPA reviewed over 800 pesticide incident reports; see Chapter 4 for details of this review. 

About half were judged to pertain to occupational 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, improving 

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. Industrial 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 exposure and the WPS is designed to encourage the use of closed 

systems in place of PPE if possible. However, the substitution of a closed system for PPE is only 

desirable if the closed system effectively prevents exposure. A closed system, under the existing 

rule, 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 revising the definition to set a performancebased standard in line with available technologies (Giles and Billing, 2013). EPA is requiring

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 solely on immediate family labor and are intended to ensure that those who choose to use 

a closed system have one that is appropriate.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

27

Crop Advisor Exemption

PPE are generally required when a person enters a field under a REI. However, the 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 judgments regarding personal 

risk.

Table 2.3-2. Existing, Proposed, and Final Requirements for Personal Protective 

Equipment.

Existing Requirement 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 standard 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 PPE or PPE 

required by label while working 

in a field during an REI

2.4 Mitigating 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 Supplies

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

28

Similarly, the existing WPS regulations require that handlers have access to “enough” water, 

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 eye 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 quantity 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 minutes, 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, the 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; 

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

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. 

whenever 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 or 6 gallons of water 

for about 15 minutes, and 1 

pint of water in a portable 

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

29

2.4.2 Emergency Assistance

In case of a worker or handler becoming ill from pesticide exposure, the existing regulations 

require that both transportation to an emergency medical facility and the provision of 

information about the pesticide for medical personnel must be “prompt.” The proposal 

established a specific timeframe 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, therefore, 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 

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

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 $81.0 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 essentially recurare expected to be constant or nearly constant each year, the 

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 and 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 assumed that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and 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; many 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, workers, 

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 

representative 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 production 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;
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 

assumes 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 million 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 handling tasks or are eligible for the immediate family 

exemption. Some of these ‘family farms’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-employed 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. 

The cost 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 WPS 

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 ‘family farms’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 selfemployed 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 lacks the data on cooccurrence 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 onfarm 

operators or immediate family farmsmembers) 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 impact of individual 

requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we have assumed 

that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, farms that do not 

need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide safety training. We 

have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the farm throughout the 

growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify most workers of all applications at 

the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed temporarily for certain 

peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers will only need to notify 

those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications to specific fields) and 

can do 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 farmworkers, 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 primarily livestock farms, 

and will not employ workers who engage 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 crops, 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 farmslabor and CPHEs, the total 

incremental cost of the WPS revisions is estimated to be between $42.4 and $47.0 million per 

year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively 

conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements 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, total incremental costs are estimated to be 

between $41.5 and $45.8 million annually. It is not an unreasonable estimate. It maintains the 

conservative assumptions about the individual requirements, especially since it includes an 

estimated 288,000 workers employed through labor contractors. The farm may be responsible 

for providing pesticide safety training for these workers, but most notification requirements 

would not be applicable for workers who are on farm for only a few days.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 estimates the 

total incremental cost of the rule to be $72.6 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. In the 

lower bound, large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $165 to $175 per year, 

on average, while the large farms employing hand labor are estimated to bear additional cost of 

$598 to $725 per year, on average, given the higher average number of workers. The estimated 

incremental cost to small farms employing hand labor is $166 to $194 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 small 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 perform 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 typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training and notification. 

Generally speaking, the revisions will 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 

management 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: workers and handlers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 as 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 they 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 activity 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 jurisdictions 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 reduce 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 is, there are some activities and/or materials that must be 

conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of employees; these costs 

are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities and/or materials may be 

conducted by or 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 costs to the regional level, 

given the number of actors (establishments or employees). There are six basic steps.

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

costr,i,a

B

t

= ∑wa∙ Hr,i,a,j

B

t

∙ freqt(j|i)

j

+ ∑cm ∙ Mr,i,a,m

B

t

∙ freqt(m|i)

m

where costr,i,a

B

t is the expected annual cost of the current requirements r, in region i, for an actor, 

a, in time t; Hr,i,a,j

B

t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirements; wa

is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; freqt(j|i) is the 

annual frequency of activity j in time t given the region; Mr,i,a,m

P

t is the quantity of material m

needed in time t under the requirement; cm is the cost of material; and freqt (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, protective 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

35

equipment, and restrictions on entry into a treated area. The last element, decontamination 

supplies and emergency assistance, addresses 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 establishment, primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g., a 

pesticide handler or agricultural worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups 

within an actor category, e.g., farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted 

by the establishment include posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each 

employee include attending training and 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 about a 20 percent 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: 

costr,a

F

t

= ∑wa∙ Hr,a,j

F

t

∙ freqt(j)

j

+ ∑cm ∙ Mr,a,m

F

t

∙ freqt(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 state 

requirements can exceed federal requirements, however, and if current state requirements exceed 

the potential federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we generally 

restrict Hr,i,,a,j

B ≤ Hr,a,jF

and Mr,i,,a,m

B ≤ Mr,a,mF

; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously 

imply a cost savings.

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and new requirements by multiplying peractor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across actors.

RCr,i

B

t

= ∑costr,i,a

B

t

× Na,i

t

a

RCr,i

F

t

= ∑costr,a

F

t

× Na,i

t

a

where RCr,i

X

denotes the cost of requirement r in region i for the baseline, B, and the new 

requirement, F; and Na,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). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

36

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

NCr

X

t = ∑RCr,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 compared or aggregated. EPA calculates the present 

value (PV) of regional costs over a ten-year time horizon.

PV(RCr,i

X

) = ∑

RCr,i

X

t

(1 + ρ)

t−1

10

t=1

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

This step and the choice 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 material. 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 chosen 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(RICr,i) = PV(RCr,i

F

) − PV(RCr,i

B

)

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

The PV of national incremental cost, PV(NICr), is calculated the same way.

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the PV incremental cost for the final rule.

PV(RICi

) = ∑PV(RICR,i)

R

Again, this is done for national level cost, NIC, by summing across regions.

Step 7. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the rule. The annualized figure represents 

the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present value as a variable 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

37

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 annualized 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 deviation 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 South 

region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 

region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 

accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 

Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 

represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e., extensive 

livestock production, rather than geographical 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 variety 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 production and the 

state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 

other states’ requirements.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 

applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 

as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 

there 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

This 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 frequency 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. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

39

wage rates for the various actors 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 to 

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 on 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, including 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, specifically 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 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014), 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 reported 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 safety 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 probability 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 that 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 described in Appendix A. 

EPA estimates that there are 465,766 crop-producing farms that hire labor, of which 354,220 use 

pesticides. This is likely to be a substantial overestimate, however, because many farms 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

40

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

handlers or fieldworkers who engage 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 89,909 farms 

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 production 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 312,568. 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 374,794 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 region1.

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, 2014; 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 requirements, 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 568,000 crop-producing farms that use 

pesticides but do not hire workers or handlers; rather, immediate family members supply labor 

for these activities.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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, smaller 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 small 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-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small 

farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 

which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million 

(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 largesmall, 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 90 percent of large and large-small WPS 

farms used pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four 

percent of medium-small farms used pesticides.

Table 3.2-3. Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, 2012.

Region WPS 

Farms

SmallSmall 1MediumSmall 2LargeSmall 3Large 4

South 57,343 10,850 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 annual 

revenue between $50,000 and $500,000.

3 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between 

$500,000 and $2.5 million. 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 obtained a report from Hoover’s of Dun & 

Bradstreet (D&B, 2014) database to identify firms under the North American Industrial 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

42

Classification System (NAICS) code 115112, for soil preparation, planting, and cultivating. This 

search resulted in 5,079 firms. 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. 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 also 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 agriculture, plant 

protection (CPARD, 2014). Given data on employment of handlers (detailed below), we 

estimate 1,936 establishments account for 16,256 commercial applicators leaving 73,338. At the 

extreme, all these commercial applicators could be self-employed. More likely, many are part of 

small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one-fourth of these 

applicators are self-employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 

average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in 

Table 3.2-4, 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 certified 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 (2014); 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, 2014b), managerial wages1for 

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 46 percent of wages across the civilian labor force (BLS, 2014b). 

 

1 Farming, fishing, and forestry workers, occupational code 45-1011.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 (2014b) reports the average 

unloaded wage rate of $22.32 per hour2. Using the same rate for benefits as for farm 

establishments, the loaded wage rate for this category is $32.65 per hour.

Employees, Workers

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. Including all crop-producing farms 

that hire labor in the category of farms covered by the WPS would imply 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, the 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 76 percent of farms that hire labor use pesticides, 87 percent of 

labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the crop farms, the number of workers at 

the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS from the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

(NASS, 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. Workers on Crop Farms.

Region Farm Labor Labor, CropProducing 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

44

Employees, Pesticide Handlers

The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms is unknown. 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 $100,000 and $750,000) employ 

one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest 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 also engage in 

worker activities and are also included in the number of workers presented in Table 3.2-5.

Data from the May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 

employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2014a). The number of 

handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (14,320 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). Regional 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 protection, 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

45

Table 3.2-6. WPS Agricultural Workers 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, 2014a; 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 establishment, not including the employer. 

Includes 217,656 handlers on farms that employ fieldworkers, which are included 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 farmworkers and laborers in crops, nurseries, and greenhouses

reported in the May 2013 occupational employment statistics is $10.01 per hour (BLS, 2014b). 

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 health 

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 $14.64 per hour.

Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, which we represent by using the wage rate for 

agricultural equipment operators, at $13.70 per hour (BLS, 2014b). The loaded wage rate for 

WPS handlers, therefore, is $20.04 per hour. Wages for commercial handlers is reported to be 

$15.90 per hour, which implies 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(RCr

X

) = ∑

∑ costr,a

X

t

a × Nat

(1 + ρ)

t−1

10

t=1
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

46

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

suppressed for clarity.

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

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

and if growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Data, however, do not 

support the hypothesis of large changes. 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 

remain more or less constant in the future.

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

PV(RCr

X

) = costr,a

X

∙ Na0∙ ∑

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 general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 

data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 

requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 

training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 

and decontamination supplies.

3.3 Cost of Final Requirements

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

different components 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 training, 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 covers the Pesticide Safety Training 

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

47

3.3.1 Pesticide Safety Training

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially 

hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity cost of labor during the time workers and/or

handlers are receiving the training. CPHEs 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 employees 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 activities, 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.

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

that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. There is a ‘grace 

period’ of five days, however, if full training cannot be provided 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 

applicators 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 cards 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 elimination of the 

grace period before training; (2) annual worker training; (3), expanded 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, training must be provided before 

an employee can mix, load, or apply pesticides and must be provided at least every five years. 

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 issue training verification cards. Changes 

to the handler safety training requirements consist of (1) annual training; (2) expanded training 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

48

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 may 

bear the opportunity cost of taking the training. Workers, for example, workers who are hired to 

harvest fruits and vegetables, are often paid by the quantity harvested; thus,although time spent 

in training is time they are not earning paycompensable 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 duration 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

costr,a

B

t

= ∑wj∙ Hr,aj

B

t

∙ Probt(j)

j

As described in Section 3.2.3, the average worker wage rate is $14.64 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 employers 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-year 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 training for one reason or another. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

49

calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 

16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training. 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 workforce, 

including both new and returning workers, are part-time employees who work less than 150 

days. EPA assumes that five percent of these part-time employees, or about 1.2 percent of the 

workforce, do not receive training because they are employed for 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 percent. However, 

this suggests that up to 23,000 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 approximately 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 time 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 estimated to be $5.51 per year, since 

the state requires the safety training to cover material similar to what will be required with these 

revisions and the training is likely to last an additional 15 minutes.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

50

Table 3.3-1. Per-Worker Baseline Costs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Full Training Session $14.64/hr 0.5 hour 0.490 $ 3.59

Abbreviated Training 

Session $14.64/hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated 

Session $33.44/hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.09

Expected Cost (costr,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 $23.26/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 $5.72 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 specifically required under the requirements, 

although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost for 

worker training is

costr,a

B

t

= ∑wj∙ Hr,aj

B

t

∙ freqt(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 $47.18 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of trainings; (2) 

individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $47.18 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, 29-9010 (BLS, 2014b). The probabilities that 

each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with trainers, extension agents, 

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

51

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 would 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 primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 

average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 

workers. EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to hold 0.7 

training 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 there are 17,598 small WPS farms 

with more than ten workers out of 255,891 small WPS farms hiring farmworkers, implying 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 16,454 large farms with more than ten workers 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 number 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 $35.60. For a small WPS farm, holding 0.81 training sessions per year on 

average, the cost is estimated to be $14.75 per year.

Table 3.3-2. Baseline Costs for Worker Pesticide Safety Training, Large WPS Farm.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Training by handler trainer $47.18/hr 0.5 hour 0.272 $ 6.42

Training by Train-theTrainer$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 (costr,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, those 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 

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

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

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 farms 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 we 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 handler 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 $6.78 per year, given a lower frequency of holding a training session. 

For CPHEs, the cost is estimated to be $27.11 per year, reflecting the highest frequency of 

training and a higher opportunity cost for a training conducted by a certified commercial 

applicator. 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 rule.

Table 3.3-3. Baseline Costs for Handler Pesticide Safety Training, Large WPS Farm.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Training by handler trainer $47.18/hr 0.75 hour 0.073 $ 2.60

Training by Train-theTrainer $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 (costr,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 categories 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. The verification cards are estimated to cost 

$0.63 per worker per year, $0.42 per farm handler per year, and $0.41 per commercial handler 

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

53

Table 3.3-4. Per-Worker Baseline Costs, Verification Cards.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Verification Card $0.06/card 1 card 0.490 $ 0.03

Distribution by handler 

trainer $47.18/hr 0.033 hour 0.069 $ 0.11

Distribution by Train-theTrainer $47.18/hr 0.033 hour 0.049 $ 0.08

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 (costr,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 probability 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 $0.21 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 three 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 $ 0.41

Expected Cost (costTRAIN,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 $14.75 $14.75 $ 0.00

Handler Safety Training $14.46 $ 6.78 $ 0.00 $27.11

Expected Cost (costTRAIN,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 large 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

54

WPS farm, employing 18 workers of which two are handlers, is expected to incur pesticide 

safety training costs of $138.88 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, increased

training content (duration), and heightened standard for trainers. Workers will also have to 

acknowledge receipt of training for the employers records and 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 developed 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 entail 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 Worker Training Requirements.

Action/Material wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Full Training Session $14.64/hr 0.75 hour 0.905 $ 9.94

Acknowledge Training $14.64/hr 0.008 hour 0.905 $ 0.11

Copy of Training Record $0.02/page 1 page 0.302 $ 0.01

Distribute Copy $33.44/hr 0.033 hour 0.302 $ 0.34

Expected Cost 

(costTRAIN,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 $23.63 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 almost 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 60 percent increase in trainings for farms with more than 10 employees, 

who are assumed to hold multiple trainings throughout the season, and a 50 to 85 percent 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

55

increase for farms with fewer than 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 

applicators. 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 Worker Training Requirements, Large Farm.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Training by handler trainer $47.18/hr 0.75 hour 0.404 $14.30

Training by Train-theTrainer $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 0.117 hour 2.887 $11.26

Training Record $ 0.02/page 1 page 2.887 $ 0.06

Folder $ 0.20 each 1 folder 1.0 $ 0.20

Expected Cost

(costTRAIN,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 average, 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 handlers 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 receive training 

during the season, which EPA assumes corresponds to the proportion of new hires obtained from 

the NAWS (DoL, 2005). The per-farm cost for handler training, not including the per-handler 

cost, is estimated to be $32.20 per year for large farms. The cost for a large-small farm is 

estimated to be $21.18, where the difference is that these smaller farms 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 for 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 $123.28 per year for 

the average large WPS farm, $65.03 per year for the average large-small WPS, $43.85 per year 

for other small WPS farms, and $50.04 per year for CPHEs. The total cost per employee is 

estimated to be $10.39 per worker, $20.39 per on-farm handler, and $23.63 per CPHE handler. 

Thus, for the average large WPS farm with 18 workers, including two handlers, total pesticide 

safety training costs are estimated to be $351.08 per year.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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.

RCr,i

X

t

= ∑costr,a

X

t

× Na,i

t

a

Tables 3.3-9a-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 $18.5 million per year.

Table 3.3-9a. Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training, WPS Farms

Region

Large WPS 

Farm

with 

Workers

Large WPS 

Farm

without 

Workers

LargeSmall WPS 

Farm

with 

Workers

LargeSmall WPS 

Farm

without

Workers

Other 

Small WPS 

Farms

with 

Workers

WPS 

Farms

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest

costTRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

Na,South 8,672 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $1,209

Na,Southwest 1,927 774 3,478 1,342 5,223 $ 269

California

costTRAIN,a

B $85.61 $32.20 $43.30 $21.18 $22.12

Na,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 855

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

costTRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

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

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

Na,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 427

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

costTRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

Na,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $1,707

Na,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $1,754

Na,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 3.3-9b. Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training, CPHEs and Employees

Region

CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE 

Handler

CPHEs & 

Employees

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest

costTRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.34 $ 5.35 $ 6.14
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

57

Region

CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE 

Handler

CPHEs & 

Employees

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Na,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $1,245

Na,Southwest 45 63,032 10,221 329 $ 331

California

costTRAIN,a

B $50.04 $ 6.13 $21.95 $25.17

Na,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $2,408

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

costTRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.03 $ 5.14 $ 5.93

Na,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 384

Na,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $1,092

Na,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $1,228

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

costTRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 3.71 $ 4.93 $ 5.72

Na,Midwest 470 255,947 61,934 3,480 $1,303

Na,Ohio Valley 488 294,148 66,738 3,609 $1,455

Na,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

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

CPHEs & Employees

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Na,South $ 1,209 $ 1,245 $ 2,453

Na,California $ 855 $ 2,408 $ 3,263

Na,Southwest $ 269 $ 331 $ 600

Na,Subtropical $ 213 $ 384 $ 597

Na,Midwest $ 1,707 $ 1,303 $ 3,010

Na,Northeast $ 837 $ 1,092 $ 1,929

Na,Ohio Valley $ 1,754 $ 1,455 $ 3,209

Na,Texas $ 1,011 $ 773 $ 1,785

Na,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.

Tables 3.3-10a-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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

58

Table 3.3-10a. Regional Costs under Final Rule, Pesticide Safety Training, WPS Farms

Large 

WPS Farm

with 

Workers

Large

WPS Farm

without 

Workers

LargeSmall WPS 

Farm

with 

Workers

LargeSmall WPS 

Farm

without

Workers

Other 

Small WPS 

Farms

with 

Workers

WPS 

Farms

costTRAIN,a

F $123.28 $ 32.20 $ 65.03 $ 21.18 $ 43.85 RCoiF

t=1

Region N ($1,000) i at

Na,South 8,672 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $ 3,357

Na,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 1,317

Na,Southwest 1,927 774 3,478 1,342 5,223 $ 746

Na,Subtropical 1,530 614 2,762 1,066 4,147 $ 592

Na,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $ 4,740

Na,Northeast 6,008 2,412 10,842 4,184 16,282 $ 2,326

Na,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $ 4,871

Na,Texas 7,255 2,913 13,092 5,052 19,662 $ 2,809

Na,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 1,185

U.S. 56,677 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 3.3-10b. Regional Costs under Final Rule, Pesticide Safety Training, CPHEs and 

Employees

CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE 

Handler

CPHEs & 

Employees

costTRAIN,a

F $50.04 $10.39 $20.39 $23.63 RCoiF

t=1

Region N ($1,000) i at

Na,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $ 3,344

Na,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $ 3,763

Na,Southwest 45 63,032 10,221 329 $ 874

Na,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 1,050

Na,Midwest 470 255,947 64,934 3,480 $ 4,090

Na,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $ 3,054

Na,Ohio Valley 8,762 294,148 66,738 3,609 $ 4,528

Na,Texas 238 152,804 38,479 1,761 $ 2,427

Na,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $ 3,290

U.S. 1,936 1,910,055 300,621 14,320 $26,420

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

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

CPHEs & Employees

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

Na,South $ 3,357 $ 3,344 $ 6,701

Na,California $ 1,317 $ 3,763 $ 5,079

Na,Southwest $ 746 $ 874 $ 1,620

Na,Subtropical $ 592 $ 1,050 $ 1,643
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

59

Region

WPS Farms

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

CPHEs & Employees

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

Na,Midwest $ 4,740 $ 4,090 $ 8,830

Na,Northeast $ 2,326 $ 3,054 $ 5,380

Na,Ohio Valley $ 4,871 $ 4,528 $ 9,400

Na,Texas $ 2,809 $ 2,427 $ 5,235

Na,Northwest $ 1,185 $ 3,290 $ 4,775

U.S. $21,944 $26,420 $48,364

Source: EPA estimates. See Tables 3.3-10a and b. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the Present Value of Costs.

The PV of regional costs for the baseline and final is calculated over a ten-year time horizon as

PV(RCR,i

X

) = ∑

RCR,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 cost of 

pesticide 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 this will take about two years. For simplicity we estimate 

upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes all requirements are implemented 

immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are delayed two years. 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.

The lower bound estimate of pesticide safety 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(RCr,i

F

) = RCr,i

B

t=1

∙ ∑

1

(1 + 0.03)

t−1

2

t=1

+ RCr,i

F

t=1

∙ ∑

1

(1 + 0.03)

t−1

10

t=3

= RCr,i

B

t=1

∙ 1.97 + RCr,i

F

t=1

∙ 6.82
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

60

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(RICr,i) = PV(RCr,i

F

) − PV(RCr,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, Pesticide Safety Training.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo 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 $424,950 $162,558 $262,392 $29,864

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Steps 6 and 7. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The national incremental cost of the pesticide safety training requirements 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 3.3-11. The incremental cost of 

pesticide safety training requirements 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, 

including 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 

62,000 farms with only handlers. 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 different 

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 employ nearly 60 workers. For small farms hiring farmworkers, those with 

annual revenue less than $750,000 per year, incremental costs are expected to average between 

$45 and $58 per year, ranging from $42 to $54 per year for farms employing around three
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

61

workers, 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 workers employed to harvest 

fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 

spent in training may represent forgone wages.

Refinements in the estimated number of workers will reduce overall costs. If farms that 

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 affected. 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 $60 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 not 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 access 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 still 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. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

62

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. Workers 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 after 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 

personnel, or inspector.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

As noted above, current 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 needed 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 3.3-12 presents the estimated baseline cost per establishment 

for five regions: South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest. The representative 

states for California, the Subtropical, Midwest, and Texas/Mountain West regions currently 

require that SDS be provided. California and Texas also have record-keeping requirements 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 farms. The baseline cost is somewhat underestimated as it does 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 will make 16.2 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, 82.2 percent of handler only WPS farms use pesticides, 

resulting in an average of 16.4 applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, 

especially field crops, but the number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following 

examples show how EPA arrived at this number.

 Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

(NASS, 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 state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 

and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 

in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 

farm.

 Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 

production, which acreage of several fruit trees, implies about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres 

of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per farm, on average (NASS, 2008, Volume 1, Chapter 2, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 each 

year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 

tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 

Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 

including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 

however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including two herbicide 

treatments, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 

fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 

Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 

however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 

DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce 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 stagger production activities. 

Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 

pesticide applications.

Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 

accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 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 crop 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 as well that most farms 

produce a variety of crops, e.g., both grains and vegetables.

Table 3.3-12. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for Hazard Communication.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 (costHazCom,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 $54.45 per year, ranging from around $53 per year for 

small WPS farms to nearly $62 per year for large WPS farms.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 used 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 in a physical folder. 

The expected cost for the hazard communication requirements is estimated to be $83.30 per farm 

per year, ranging from $80 for small farms to $94 per large farm per year. The actually cost may 

be lower according to the number of applications made while workers are present.

Table 3.3-13. Per-Establishment Costs for Final Hazard Communication Requirements.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq(j|i)

cost

Record 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 $ 0.02/sheet 3.3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

File Haz Comm material $33.44/hr 0.017 hr 16.2 $ 9.05

Information sheet for file $ 0.02/sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32

Copy of SDS for file $ 0.02/sheet 3.3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

Folder $ 0.20 1 0.8 $ 0.16

Expected Cost (costHazCom,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 employee 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 appropriate 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 assumes that a copy of the record is provided to the employee. The 

expected cost per request is estimated to be $3.43. Estimating the number of requests that might 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

65

be made is subject to a great deal of uncertainty. Given that the information is posted for 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 requests

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 estimated to 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 3.3-14. Per-Establishment Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 $ 0.07

Expected Cost (costHazCom,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-mailed 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 provides 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 electronically. If the response must be made using hard 

copies, EPA estimates the cost to be about $17 per request. In addition to the time to prepare the 

mailing, this cost includes copies of the records and return receipt postage to obtain proof that 

the request was 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 per-employee cost 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 18 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

66

Table 3.3-15. Per-Employee Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 (costHazCom,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

We 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 3.3-16 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 per 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 to 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, the national cost is estimated to be $23.2 million per year.

Table 3.3-16. Regional Baseline Costs, Hazard Communication

Region

Large WPS 

Farm

Small WPS 

Farm

WPS 

Worker/Handler

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest

costHazCom,a

B $61.76 $52.67 $ 0.00

Na,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $3,131

Na,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $ 696

Na,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $2,169

Na,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $4,543

Na,Northwest 4,289 15,949 287,277 $1,105

California

costHazCom,a

B $97.38 $83.05 $0.00

Na,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $1,936

Subtropical and Midwest

costHazCom,a

B $82.84 $70.65 $0.00

Na,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 741

Na,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $5,928
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

67

Region

Large WPS 

Farm

Small WPS 

Farm

WPS 

Worker/Handler

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Texas/Mountain West

costHazCom,a

B $93.62 $79.84 $0.07

Na,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 3.3-17 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 

$32.5 million dollars per year.

Table 3.3-17. Regional Costs under Final Rule, Hazard Communication

Large WPS 

Farm

Small WPS 

Farm

WPS 

Worker/Handler

costHazCom,a

F $94.23 $83.05 $ 0.14 RCoiF

t=1

Region Ni a ($1,000)

Na,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $4,969

Na,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $1,981

Na,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $1,106

Na,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 883

Na,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $7,007

Na,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $3,452

Na,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $7,206

Na,Texas 10,168 37,806 287,277 $4,152

Na,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 Present Value 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 3.3-18 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 because 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 costs 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

68

Table 3.3-18. PV of Final, Baseline, and Incremental Costs, Hazard Communication.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo 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.

Steps 6 and 7. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the hazard communication requirements is 

estimated to be $81.7 million over ten years, or about $9.3 million dollars annually. EPA 

estimates that there are 374,794 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 

will 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 likely 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 workers 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 estimated 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 employers who must provide their 

employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 

information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 

information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 

communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 

pesticide applications.

Revisions to the WPS will cover three areas pertaining to notifications: informing workers of 

treated areas under a restricted entry interval (REI), informing workers of required safety 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

69

precautions if they must enter an area under a REI, and informing workers of basic safety 

precautions and decontamination procedures. Under the current rule, employers must usually 

inform workers of areas under a REI either orally or by posting warning signs at 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 requirements. 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 required on the label. For greenhouses, 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 entering 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 also 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 the 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 all 

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 3.3-19, 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 multiple notifications. 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 orally 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-small 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, which 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 percent purchases three signs. The expected per-farm cost is estimated to be 

between $35 and $137 depending on the size of the farm. See Appendix B.

Table 3.3-19. Per-Large-Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $33.44/hr 0.05 hour 20.8 $ 34.70

Signs $ 7.35 each 2 signs 0.383 $ 5.63

Post Sign $33.44/hr 0.333 hour 1.53 $ 17.06

Signs $ 7.35 each 3 signs 0.089 $ 1.96

Post Sign $33.44/hr 0.50 hour 0.36 $ 5.95

Expected Cost (costREI,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 to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

71

be about $132 per year for a small greenhouse and $180 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 $11.04 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 all the workers. 

Expected per-worker cost for a greenhouse ranges from $0.59 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. Workers 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, workers must have either read the product labeling or been informed 

of the labeling 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 assumptions 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 2008b), which varies by the size of the farm.

Table 3.3-20 presents the calculation for a medium-small farm, where the likelihood of using 

pesticides is 79.5 percent, leading to a probability of an early entry event of 0.318 or 31.8 percent 

per year. The expected cost for a medium-small WPS farm is $0.71 per year and the cost ranges 

from $0.47 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

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Gather Information $33.44/hr 0.017 hour 0.318 $ 0.18

Provide Information $33.44/hr 0.05 hour 0.318 $ 0.53

Expected Cost (costEarlyEntry,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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 medium-small WPS 

farm, this is 84.1 percent. Calculated costs range from $0.07 to $0.14 per worker, on average.

Safety displays. Currently, a single safety poster is required at the establishment’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. According 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 $1.68 to $3.03 per 

year, on average.

Baseline Notification Costs. Table 3.3-21 presents the estimated costs of the individual 

components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total baseline notification costs.

Table 3.3-21. 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 $ 0.71 $ 2.54 $ 57.00

Small-Small 

WPS Farm $ 35.20 $ 0.47 $ 1.68 $ 37.35

Large WPS 

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 0.66 $ 2.38 $182.80

Small WPS 

Greenhouse $131.64 $ 0.49 $ 1.74 $133.87

Large HandlerOnly Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.72 $ 2.72

Small HandlerOnly Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.01 $ 2.01

Worker, Large 

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 7.88

Worker, LargeSmall WPS Farm $ 11.04 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 11.17

Worker, Other 

Small WPS Farm $ 9.63 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 9.75
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

73

Actor

REI 

Notification

Early Entry 

Information Safety Display Total

Worker, Large 

Greenhouse $ 0.92 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 1.04

Worker, Small 

Greenhouse $ 0.59 $ 0.07 $ 0.00 $ 0.67

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 $137.22 per year, including $133.87 in the cost of signs and employer time and 

$3.35 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-

20 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 more than 48 

hours is somewhat conservative. Long REIs, especially in fruit and vegetable production, can 

impede routine but necessary activities. As shown in Table 3.3-22, the estimated cost for a 

large-small farm is $132 per year, on average, compared to $65 per year in the baseline. The 

expected per-establishment cost ranges between $65 and $137, 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.

Table 3.3-22. Per-Large-Small WPS Farm Costs, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $33.44/hr 0.05 hour 14.5 $ 24.29

Signs $ 7.35 each 4 signs 0.383 $ 11.25

Post Sign $33.44/hr 0.333 hour 6.12 $ 68.26

Signs $ 7.35 each 6 signs 0.089 $ 3.92

Post Sign $33.44/hr 0.50 hour 1.42 $ 23.81

Expected Cost 

(costREI,i,a

F)

$131.53

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

74

The rule will give greenhouse employers the option of orally notifying 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 greenhouses 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 the baseline to gather and 

disseminate the information. Table 3.3-23 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 3.3-23. Per Medium-Small WPS Farm Costs, Information for Early Entry.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Gather Information $33.44/hr 0.167 hour 0.318 $ 1.06

Provide Information $33.44/hr 0.167 hour 0.318 $ 1.06

Expected Cost 

(costEarlyEntry,i,a

F)

$ 2.13

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Tables B.3.b-8, for data sources. Numbers 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 $0.15 per worker in a small greenhouse to $0.28 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 safety 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 displays 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 vegetables 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 3.3-24 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 a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

75

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 and 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 on 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 largesmall 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 3.3-24. Per-Large-Small WPS Farm Costs, Safety Displays.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

freq (j|i)

cost

Central Poster $ 6.25 each 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 each 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 (costSafetyDisplay,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 3.3-25 presents the estimated costs of the 

individual components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total notification costs

under the revised WPS.

Table 3.3-25. Per-Actor Costs under Revisions, Notification.

Actor

REI 

Notification

Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Large WPS Farm $136.58 $ 2.53 $ 5.72 $144.83

Large-Small 

WPS Farm $131.53 $ 2.52 $ 4.48 $138.53

Medium-Small 

WPS Farm $106.33 $ 2.13 $ 2.99 $111.44

Small-Small 

WPS Farm $ 65.07 $ 1.41 $ 1.98 $ 68.46

Large WPS 

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 1.99 $ 14.05 $195.80
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

76

Actor

REI 

Notification

Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Small WPS 

Greenhouse $111.33 $ 1.46 $ 2.05 $114.84

Large HandlerOnly Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.19 $ 3.19

Small HandlerOnly Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.03 $ 3.03

Worker, Large 

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.28 $ 0.00 $ 8.02

Worker, LargeSmall WPS Farm $ 7.73 $ 0.28 $ 0.00 $ 8.00

Worker, Other 

Small WPS Farm $ 6.74 $ 0.24 $ 0.00 $ 6.98

Worker, Large 

Greenhouse $ 0.92 $ 0.23 $ 0.00 $ 1.15

Worker, Small 

Greenhouse $ 1.78 $ 0.15 $ 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, 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. For example, a small greenhouse, which 

employs an average of five workers, would be expected to bear costs associated with these 

notification requirements of $124.49 per year, including $114.84 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

We 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.

RCr,i

X

t

= ∑costr,a

X

t

× Na,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. Tables 3.3-26a-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 $38.4 million per year.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

77

Table 3.3-26a. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farms with 

Workers

Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

MediumSmall WPS 

Farm

Small-Small 

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costREI,a

B $136.58 $ 65.31 $ 53.75 $ 35.20

Region Ni at

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 3.3-26b. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farm and 

Nursery Workers

Worker 

Large WPS 

Farm

Worker 

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Worker 

MediumSmall WPS 

Farm

Worker 

Small-Small 

WPS Farm

WPS Farmworkers 

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

B $ 7.74 $ 11.04 $ 9.63 $ 9.63

Region Ni at

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 3.3-26c. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Greenhouses

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Small WPS 

Greenhouse

WPS 

Greenhouse

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

B $179.76 $131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59

Region Ni at

South 22 123 1,932 511 $ 22

California 9 48 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 5
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

78

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Small WPS 

Greenhouse

WPS 

Greenhouse

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

B $179.76 $131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59

Region Ni at

Subtropical 4 22 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 31 173 2,194 580 $ 31

Northeast 15 85 1,948 515 $ 16

Ohio Valley 32 178 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 3.3-26d. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Total

Region

WPS Farm WPS FarmworkersWPS 

Greenhouse

RCRiB

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.

Tables 3.3-27a-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 3.3-27a. Regional Costs under Final Rule, REI Notification Requirements, Farms 

with Workers

Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

MediumSmall WPS 

Farm

Small-Small 

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

F $136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07

Region Ni at

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 $ 931
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

79

Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

MediumSmall WPS 

Farm

Small-Small 

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

F $136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07

Region Ni at

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 $34,494

Source: EPA estimates. See Table 3.3-25. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-27b. Regional Costs under Final Rule, REI Notification Requirements, Farm 

and Nursery Workers

Worker 

Large WPS 

Farm

Worker 

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Worker 

MediumSmall WPS 

Farm

Worker 

Small-Small 

WPS Farm

WPS Farmworkers 

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

F $ 7.74 $ 7.73 $ 6.74 $ 6.74

Region Ni at

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 3.3-27c. 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

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

F $179.76 $111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73

Region Ni at

South 22 123 1,932 511 $ 20

California 9 48 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 5

Subtropical 4 22 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 31 173 2,194 580 $ 28

Northeast 15 85 1,948 515 $ 15

Ohio Valley 32 178 2,522 667 $ 29
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

80

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Large WPS 

Greenhouse

Worker 

Small WPS 

Greenhouse

WPS 

Greenhouse

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costNOTIFY,a

F $179.76 $111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73

Region Ni at

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 3.3-27d. Regional Costs under Final Rule, REI Notification Requirements, Total

Region

WPS Farm WPS FarmworkersWPS 

Greenhouse

RCRiF

1

($1,000)

South $ 5,278 $ 1,672 $ 20 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 3.3-28 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 providing 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 3.3-28. Regional Baseline Costs, Notification Requirements, Total

Region

REI 

Notifications

Early Entry 

Information

Pesticide Safety 

Displays

RCRiB

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

81

The estimated regional costs under the final rule are presented in Table 3.3-29. In total, 

notification requirements under the final WPS are expected to cost $51.4 million per year. Early 

entry information 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, implying 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 farms using large labor crews.

Table 3.3-29. Regional Costs under Final Rule, Notification Requirements, Total

Region

REI 

Notifications

Early Entry 

Information

Pesticide Safety 

Displays

RCRiF

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 Present Value 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 under 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

82

Table 3.3-30. PV of Final, Baseline, and Incremental Costs, Notification.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo i) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $64,510 $ 48,250 $16,259 $ 1,851

California $41,282 $ 37,621 $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.

Steps 6 and 7. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the notification requirements is estimated to be 

$101 million over ten years, or about $11.5 million dollars annually. EPA estimates that there 

are 374,794 affected farms implying 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 

field 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 small 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 applications. If most workers are present only 

during the harvest season, notification and posting 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 

estimated 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 rule. 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 per 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 staff.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 

assume 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, 2014b). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent 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, $12.03 and $15.03 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, 0.41 percent were 14- and 

15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. 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. The 

survey further indicated that handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per 

year of handler-related activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of 

adolescent handlers, we calculate an expected cost per WPS handler for these tasks of about 

$15.60 per handler per year. For a WPS farm that only employs handlers, 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 Costs 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 $ 15.03 50 0.018 $13.27

Expected Cost (costLabor,i,a

B) $15.60

Source: EPA estimation. See text and Appendix B, Table B.4.a-1, for data sources. Numbers may not 

sum due to rounding.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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

handlers 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 that 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. As noted in the 

Notification section (Chapter 3.3.3), entry during a restricted-entry interval may occur if there is 

an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no contact with 

treated surfaces such as some 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 ofafter initial employment with a 

given employer. Loaded wages are calculated 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 protect 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 involved 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 nine 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, 91.3 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

85

percent, resulting in the estimated fraction of adolescents engaged in early entry activities our of 

all workers: 0.7 percent for 14 and 15 year olds and 0.8 percent for 16 and 17 year olds.

Table 3.3-32. Baseline Labor Costs 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 0.006 $ 0.18

16-17 Year Old $ 8.79 4 0.008 $ 0.29

Expected Cost (costLabor,i,a

B) $ 0.47

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 $0.47 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 $8.50 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 ($18.95 for a farm with handlers only) and for a CPHE, the cost is 

$193.54 per handler per year. See Table 3.3-33.

Table 3.3-33. Labor Costs 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 

(costLabor,i,a

B)

$ 20.04 50 0.022 $ 21.57

Final Rule, WPS Farm without fieldworkers

Expected Cost 

(costLabor,i,a

B)

$ 20.04 50 0.019 $ 18.95

Final Rule, CPHE

Expected Cost 

(costLabor,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 requirement is likely to impose negligible costs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

86

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, given an adult wage rate of $14.64 per hour.

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

As per the methodology described in Section 3.3.2, we 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.

RCr,i

X

t

= ∑costr,a

X

t

× Na,i

t

a

Table 3.3-34 presents 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 3.3-34. Baseline Labor Costs, Minimum Age

WPS Handler

Farm with 

Fieldworkers

WPS Handler

Farm without 

Fieldworkers

CPHE 

Handler

WPS 

Worker

RCRi

B

t=1

costAge,a ($1,000) B $ 15.60 $ 13.70 $145.15 $ 0.47

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. 215,638 84,983 14,320 1,910,055 $ 7,528

Source: EPA estimates. See Appendix B, Tables B.4.a-1 and 2. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Baseline cost per WPS worker is $0.84 because of state minimum age of 18 for workers to engage in 

early entry activities.

Table 3.3-35 presents the expected labor costs under the minimum age requirements. The 

national cost, replacing adolescent labor in handler and early entry activities with adult labor, is 

estimated to be $10.6 million per year.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

87

Table 3.3-35. Labor Costs under Final Rule, Minimum Age Restrictions

WPS Handler

Farm with 

Fieldworkers

WPS Handler

Farm without 

Fieldworkers

CPHE 

Handler

WPS 

Worker

RCRi

F

t=1

costAge,a ($1,000) 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, Tables B.4.b-1 and 2. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 4. Calculate the Present Value 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 3.3-36 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 workers in each region.

Table 3.3-36. PV of Final, Baseline, and Incremental Costs, Minimum Age.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo 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.

Steps 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 CPHEs is estimated to be about $700,000 annually. Given an estimated 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

88

1,936 CPHEs, the cost per firm is around $360 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 $8.30 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 estimated 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 farms 

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 pesticide 

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 restrictions do not require specific activities or 

materials. Primarily, the revisions provide greater specificity to existing regulations. At most, 

the cost 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 areas. During an application, the employer must ensure that workers do not 

enter 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” extending 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 she observes 

someone other than a trained and equipped handler in the zone.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs.

Entry 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 under 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 require early entry 

personnel to wear PPE, do not allow hand labor, and may include other limitations such as 

specifying 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 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 the 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 Chapter 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 covers 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. 

Since the probability of a problem occurring shortly after a pesticide application is independent 

of the pesticide, the likelihood of a situation arising after the use of a double notification product 

is small. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be involved in an early 

entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers if the time limit is 

reached. This will involve some management burden, but is unlikely to result in a significant 

impact.

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 

of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 

needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely 

negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 

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

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 more frequent changes in filters and additional 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 large 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 3.3-37, EPA assumes this operation takes about six minutes of interaction, on average, 

between the employer and the handler. Pesticides bearing label requirements for respirators are 

not common, but there are a few commonly used pesticides 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 $180, as 

detailed in Appendix B. Based on data of fumigant use from proprietary sources, EPA estimates 

about 1,000 farms apply fumigants applications on farm, or about 0.4 percent of farms.

Table 3.3-37. Baseline Costs, per Large and Large-Small WPS farm, Respirator Fit.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 0.004 $ 0.80

Expected Cost costr,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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

91

EPA does not estimate costs for family 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 tested 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 $201 per year, on average. Assuming half the handlers in a 

firm obtain the testing, the average cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be $40 per year.

Closed 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 pesticide. The expected perfarm cost of a system, accounting for systems that are only partially closed, is estimated in Table 

3.3-38 for a large WPS farm. This is not a regulatory cost; closed systems are not required. 

Based on a report from the Biological 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 an

existing 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 approximately $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 produce 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. Similarly, 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 system. 

Finally, farms relying on owner and immediate family farmsmembers 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 familysuch farms that primarily produce oilseeds 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 family farmsfarms relying on owner and 

immediate family members to handle pesticides.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

92

We conservatively estimate 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 farms members to handle pesticides the expected cost is estimated at 

$10.09 per year. A CPHE may have two systems, 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 costs 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 3.3-38. Per-Large WPS Farm Baseline Costs, Closed System.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 $20.04/hour 0.25 hour 0.331 $ 1.66

Expected Cost costr,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, 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.

PPE exceptions for employees 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 economically 

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

93

Step 2. Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement

Respirator fit test. The requirement will 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 

complete a medical screening and have a fit test. The actions and materials required are shown 

in Table 3.3-39. Medical screening is 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 obtain 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 replacement 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 testing. 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 62,000 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

94

Table 3.3-39. Costs under Final Rule, Large WPS Farm, Respirator Fit Test.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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

costr,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 examination.

Pesticide handlers on farms that rely on owner and immediate family farmslabor 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 large-small familysuch 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 choose 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.

Closed systems that substitute for PPE. EPA is adopting 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, 

under 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 have to be rewritten about 

every 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 for a large WPS farm to be $27.63 per year, on average, across all large WPS 

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

95

Table 3.3-40. Per-Large WPS Farm Costs under Final Rule, Closed System.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 $ 0.00

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 costr,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 farmslabor, 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 exceptions for employees under the supervision of CCAs. The final rule will not allow noncertified employees of CCAs to forego the labeled use of PPE if they enter a field under a REI. 

The impacts of eliminating the exception will be negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it 

takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, coveralls) on rare occasions. 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, we 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.

RCr,i

X

t

= ∑costr,a

X

t

× Na,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 the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

96

impacts of the PPE component as a whole. Table 3.3-41 presents 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 farmslabor. California and Washington have higher baseline costs for 

WPS handlers because they require fit testing for all handlers working with products requiring a 

respirator. Currently, EPA estimates the national cost for compliance with respirator 

requirements to be $1.8 million per year for WPS farms.

Table 3.3-41. Baseline Costs, Respirator Fit Requirement, WPS and Family Farms 1

Large WPS Farm Large-Small WPS 

Farm

WPS Farm

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costRespirator,a

B $ 2.88 $ 2.88

Region Ni at

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

costRespirator,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 farmslabor. EPA estimates that the new 

requirements will cost these establishments about $11.1 million and $1.3 million 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 62,000 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 farmslabor the average 

incremental cost is about nine dollars per farm. There are probably only around 7,000 

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

97

Table 3.3-42. Costs under Final Rule, Respirator Fit Requirement, WPS and Family 

FarmsFarms and Farms relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall WPS 

Farm WPS Farm

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

Large 

Family 

Farm, 

Owner 

Labor

Large-Small 

Family 

Farm, 

Owner 

Labor

Family 

Farm, 

Owner 

Labor

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costRespirator,a

F $ 96.76 $ 24.35 $ 40.89 $ 4.18

Region Ni at Ni at

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 3.3-43 presents the regional and national baseline cost for CPHEs regarding respirators 

and closed systems. EPA estimates that CPHEs are currently spending about $962,000 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 exception to some label-required PPE.

Table 3.3-43. Baseline Costs, PPE Requirements, CPHEs

Respirator Fit Closed Systems

CPHE CPHE 

Handler

CPHE

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

CPHE CPHE

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costPPE,a

B $201.44 $39.97 $128.27

Region Ni at Ni at

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

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 about $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 incremental 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

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

CPHE CPHE

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costPPE,a

F $201.44 $41.06 $157.80

Region Ni at Ni at

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 farmslabor 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 familyother farms, respectively.

Table 3.3-45. Baseline Costs, Closed System Definition, WPS and Family FarmsFarms 

relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm WPS Farms

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

Large Family 

Farm, Owner 

Labor

Family 

Farms, 

Owner Labor

RCRi

B

t=1

($1,000)

costClosedSystem,a

B $ 17.75 $ 3.85 $ 10.0972

Region Ni at

Ni at

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

99

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.

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 family farms.farms relying on owner and 

immediate 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 of 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 farms is under $30 per 

year. The incremental cost to farms relying on owner and immediate family farmslabor is estimated 

to be $103,000 per year, which is also about $30 per year for the estimated 3,600 familysuch

farms using closed systems.

Table 3.3-46. Costs under Final Rule, Closed System Definition, WPS and Family 

FarmsFarms relying on owner and immediate family labor

Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm WPS Farms

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

Large Family 

Farm, Owner 

Labor

Family 

Farms, 

Owner Labor

RCRi

F

t=1

($1,000)

costClosedSystem,a

F $ 27.63 $ 5.99 $ 15.7116.34

Region Ni at

Ni at

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 3.3-47 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. Baseline Costs, PPE Requirements, Total

Region

WPS Farms

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Family Farms, 

Owner Labor

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

CPHEs

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Total

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Na,South $ 397 $ 31 $ 284 $ 712

Na,California $ 813 $ 16 $ 198 $ 1,027

Na,Southwest $ 88 $ 7 $ 80 $ 175

Na,Subtropical $ 70 $ 5 $ 56 $131
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

100

Region

WPS Farms

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Family Farms, 

Owner Labor

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

CPHEs

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Total

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

Na,Midwest $ 560 $ 44 $1,118 $ 1,722

Na,Northeast $ 275 $ 22 $ 212 $ 509

Na,Ohio Valley $ 576 $ 45 $ 582 $ 1,203

Na,Texas $ 332 $ 22 $ 291 $ 649

Na,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 farmslabor, 

mostly for respirator fit testing. CPHEs bear about $910,000 of the incremental cost.

Table 3.3-48. Costs under Final Rule, PPE Requirements, Total

Region

WPS Farms

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

Family Farms, 

Owner Labor

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

CPHEs

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

Total

RCRi

F

1

($1,000)

Na,South $ 2,170 $ 240 $ 342 $ 2,752

Na,California $ 851 $ 94 $ 233 $ 1,178

Na,Southwest $ 482 $ 53 $ 104 $ 640

Na,Subtropical $ 383 $ 42 $ 69 $ 494

Na,Midwest $ 3,063 $ 333 $ 1,499 $ 4,901

Na,Northeast $ 1,503 $ 166 $ 262 $ 1,932

Na,Ohio Valley $ 3,148 $ 348 $722 $ 4,219

Na,Texas $ 1,815 $ 201 $ 363 $ 2,379

Na,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 Present Value 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 3.3-49 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 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

101

incremental cost is low in California because the state baseline is near or even exceeds the final 

federal requirements.

Table 3.3-49. PV of Final, Baseline, and Incremental Costs, PPE.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo i) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $ 24,187 $ 6,260 $17,928 $ 2,040

California $ 10,349 $ 9,025 $ 1,324 $ 151

Southwest $ 5,621 $ 1,533 $ 4,085 $ 465

Subtropical $ 4,341 $ 1,156 $ 3,185 $ 362

Midwest $ 43,069 $15,142 $27,927 $ 3,179

Northeast $ 16,977 $ 4,474 $12,503 $ 1,423

Ohio Valley $ 37,079 $10,578 $26,502 $ 3,016

Texas/Mountain West $ 20,909 $ 5,710 $15,199 $ 1,730

Northwest $ 11,886 $ 9,444 $ 2,442 $ 278

National $174,419 $ 63,325 $111,094 $ 12,644

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Steps 6 and 7. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement.

The PV national incremental cost of revising PPE requirements is estimated to be $111 million 

over ten years, or about $12.6 million annually. Agricultural establishments bear approximately 

$11.7 million in annual costs while costs to CPHEs is estimated to be about $910,000 annually. 

The 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 farmslabor, 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 not 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 means 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

102

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

Quantity of water available for early entry events. For 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 sufficient. Based 

on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. (NASS, 2014a), a 

gallon of water would cost about $0.004. Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized 

the probability that an early event occurs on an establishment 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 when 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). Given that some commonly used herbicide products, such as 2,4-D, and 

fungicide products, 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 use 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, sheep, 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 3.3-50. 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 the handlers need a water bottle and the bottles must be replaced every two years.

Table 3.3-50. Per-Large WPS Farm Baseline Cost, Handler Eye Flushing.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 costr,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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

103

Step 2. Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement

Quantity of water available for early entry events. For 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 parameters 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 requires 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 the field, the employer will need to supply at least six gallons and a container 

that would provide a steady flow of water for about 15 minutes. Safety supply stores offer fivegallon dispensers designed for quick refilling in cases where eye flushing is needed for about $21 

(Gempler’s, 2015). A dispenser is assumed to last about eight years, so the frequency or 

probability of purchase is half that of a water bottle. See Table 3.3-51. Water 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

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,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 costr,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 Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

As per the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.2, we 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.

RCr,i

X

t

= ∑costr,a

X

t

× Na,i

t

a

Table 3.3-52 presents the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Chapter 3.2. 

The current national cost for decontamination water and materials to address potential 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

104

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 RCRi

B

t=1

costDecon,a ($1,000) 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 

activities 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 RCRi

F

t=1

costDecon,a ($1,000) 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 Present Value 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 Chapter 

3.2.2.

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

Table 3.3-54 presents the PV of costs incurred to provide decontamination materials for handler 

eye flush and workers engaged in early entry activities under the final rule, under the baseline, as 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

105

well as the incremental costs. Variations in costs across regions are due to the differing number 

of farms, workers, and CPHE handlers in each region.

Table 3.3-54. PV of Final, Baseline, and Incremental Costs, Decontamination Supplies.

Region PV(RCo

F

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo 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 $3,622 $412.2

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Steps 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 $412,000 annually. About $371,000 of 

costs accrue to WPS farms. All 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 

farms will likely incur incremental costs of about $2.60 per year to provide decontamination 

supplies to both workers and handlers, while the cost to small WPS farms will average around 

$0.80 per year. The cost for an average CPHE, employing about seven handlers, is estimated to 

be about $21.30 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 farms 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

The 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 

estimated to increase the cost of complying with the Worker Protection Standard by $587 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 $66.9 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 

$528 million and the annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $60.2 million. Only the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

106

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. With a seven percent discount rate, 

the annual incremental cost of the final regulations is estimated to be between $56.2 and $66.9

million. Because costs recur annually, the choice of discount rate does not change the estimates, 

except when some requirements are delayed.

Table 3.3-55. PV of Final Rule and Baseline Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total)

Region RCo

F

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South $ 205,631 $ 113,463 $ 92,168 $ 10,490

California $ 120,755 $ 96,954 $ 23,801 $ 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

Source: 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 $41.5 million 

and $45.8 million per year. The lower bound estimates are based on 272,000 farms employing 

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 establishments, the incremental cost of the 

final revisions to the WPS is estimated to be between $72.6 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 estimate of $66.9 million per year. The informational 

regulations, i.e., the training, 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 across the different assumptions.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

107

Figure 3.3-1. Contribution of components of the final Worker Protection Standard to 

total annualized incremental cost, $66.9 million.

Average per-entity costs are presented in Table 3.3-56. 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 

farmworkers are expected to average just over $350 per year, ranging from an additional $307

per year in the Texas/Mountain West region to $514 per year in the Northwest where there is a 

high average number of workers per farm. California also has a high average number 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 $140 per year, on average, ranging from less than $100

per year in California to $159 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 estimated 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 $170 per year, on 

average, and for small farms employing handlers only estimated at $71 per year, on average.

Training

45%

HazCom

14%

Notification

17%

Age

5%

Entry

0%

PPE

Supply 19%

0%

Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$23.2 - 29.9 million

$11.5 million

$3.1 million

$12.6 million

$412,000

$9.3 million
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

108

Table 3.3-56. Average Worker Per-Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total)

Region Large WPS Farm

with farm workers

Small WPS Farm

with farm workers

workers/farm EICo i workers/farm EICo i

South 13.8 $ 354 2.7 $ 147

California 50.8 $ 308 9.9 $ 88

Southwest 17.4 $ 378 3.4 $ 149

Subtropical 29.2 $ 434 5.7 $ 139

Midwest 11.1 $ 322 2.2 $ 131

Northeast 20.1 $ 403 3.9 $ 153

Ohio Valley 12.4 $ 354 2.4 $ 149

Texas/Mountain 

West 11.2 $ 307 2.2 $ 149

Northwest 49.1 $ 514 9.6 $ 159

U.S. 17.9 $ 355 3.5 $ 142

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 higherthan-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. Similarly, 

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 for 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 farmslabor also result from revisions to the definition of closed 

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 familysuch 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 be between $29.90 and $33.30 per year per employee, including 

handlers employed at CPHEs. This measure does not consider the family farm operators thatand 

their immediate family members who will also benefit from greater protections stemming from 

properly fitting respirators 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 state 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

109

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 attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has 

tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 

would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is

unknown.

3.4 Impact on Jobs and Employment

EPA also calculates 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 

worker (i.e., not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is estimated to be about $5.30

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 reduction in the per-worker cost of the 

notification requirements of $1.30 per year as greater emphasis is placed on posting REI 

information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0.40 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 $ 0.35 $ 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 is still relatively 

minor. Training requirements add about $14.30 per year to employment costs, but the 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 $5.80

per year to employment costs by restricting farms from using lower-wage adolescents to mix, 

load, and apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around 

$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 numbers, 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 eight 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

110

hours per day and assuming only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $24,000 

per year. An increase in cost of $50 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 agricultural 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 this 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 entities, including businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. 

When significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, 

agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 

effects on significantly 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 compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less 

than one percent of annual sales as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 

sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 

considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 

a substantial number of firms will be impacted.

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we use the following 

thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial”:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

30% of all small farms;

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

111

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 

substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

20% of all small farms;

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 

farms; or

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 

of all small farms.

Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 

incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 

develop cost-to-sales ratios. 

In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. 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 twoyear delayed implementation of the training requirements.

We focus on WPS farms because farms relying on owner and immediate family farmslabor 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 across 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, small 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 with 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 farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The 

Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as 

well as the people who operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, 

operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas.

EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 

for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 

greenhouses, and nurseries). 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 are separated into two main size classifications (large and small) according to the SBA 

size definitions. Small farms are defined as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 

and small feedlots have less than $2.5 million in annual sales. Table 3.5-1 presents the estimated 

number of farms, by type, and the proportion of the total that are small farms. The WPS applies 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

112

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. We exclude 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. 

Therefore, EPA estimates 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 80 percent of these farms use pesticides, at least 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. Farms, by type and size, and average number of employees.

Farm Type

Number of 

Farms

Small Farms1

(%)

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 2374,794 79% 1,995,037 1,995,037

WPS Farms 2using 

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 enterprise. 

If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 

jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of crops produced. Similarly, labor 

remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 

the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e., 

those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 

define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms 

as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with 

annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

113

Table 3.5-2. Average annual revenues and employees, by Farm type and size.

Type 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

employees 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 annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and smallsmall farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 

those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small 

feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium-small feedlots, with 

annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small-small feedlots, with annual sales less than 

$50,000 per year.

2 Average revenue by economic category reported in the Census, weighted by the number of farms in 

each aggregate category defined by EPA; feedlots included in the same revenue categories as all other 

farms to avoid biasing estimates.

3 Weighted average of EPA defined categories, given average sales 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 suggest 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 related 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 the 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 make 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 

accounting 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 Northwest 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 the rule is less than 0.1 percent of 

average sales. Only the very smallest farms, with sales of less than $10,000 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 

California that use pesticides and that would face impacts well below the national average. It 

also includes nearly 23,000 small-small farms that are primarily field crop and forage producers 

whose employees are unlikely to engage in hand labor activities that would trigger WPS 

provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or no cost as a result of the final revisions. The 

remaining 12,000 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses are those most likely to face the expected 

incremental cost, representing about six 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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. There are likely two 

sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether 

WPS training requirements will apply to small-small farms every year of a ten-year time period, 

which is an underlying assumption of the analysis 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 application has been made. Under this scenario, the expected incremental cost to smallsmall 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 assumption that small-small farms 

employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary 

basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be 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-small farms make only five 

applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required (e.g., within 

about 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the final rule is 

about $54 to $68 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 $32 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 that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the final rule would generally 

not be considered significant.

3.6 State Costs

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 evidence of compliance or noncompliance than 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

116

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 WPS. 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 some planned programs may in order to 

focus on changes to the WPS. However, EPA does not anticipate 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 cover 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 health effects to workers and handlers. Under the final rule, it is expected that workers 

and pesticide handlers will have better information and protections that will enable them to 

reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to better protection 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 ensures 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 

substantially 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 changes and 

clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 

pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 

directly reduce pesticide exposure to the agricultural workforce. 

 Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, 

and the final rule improves 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 to 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 how the three measures 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 other requirements 

summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in combination with training 

to improve 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 routes of exposure, safer storage of 

pesticides, and a greater understanding of how to protect children from take home exposure. 

Both Strong et al. (2008) and Salvatore et al. (2009) report better self-protection practices after 

safety training for Hispanic workers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 changes 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 through a 

better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers,

 avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents (e.g., 

developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers, 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 poisoning 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 amount 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 pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of 

the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

119

families. Section 4.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

benefits can be quantified. 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 reduced 

by the rule. The final section of the chapter presents an 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 another 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). Workers 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 72,000 handlers are employed or self-employed at commercial 

pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2014, See Section 3.2.3). The agricultural workforce 

as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues and that exposure can 

pose long and short term health 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 

exposed 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 adverse 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 handlers; and training 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 (discussed below) may be particularly 

important for long-term development. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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, which 

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 are 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 models, 

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 pesticide 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 laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported 

home on farmers’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in 

home vehicles for farm families, indicating another possible exposure route for both children and 

pregnant women. In a literature review of the take home exposure pathway, Vida et al. (2007), 

reported results that indicate that take home exposure is an important source of exposure for 

children. The studies cited above consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the 

agricultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and that levels of 

Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest levels of 

azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a farmworker 

would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, Coronado et al., 2006). Curl et al., (2002) 

found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which suggest 

the take home pathway is the 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 Valley 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 less 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

121

harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly 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 developing arthritis or other health problems.” Quandt et al. (1998) found that 

farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute 

(not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al., 2007). Other exposure 

routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, 

or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures (discussed 

below) may be particularly important for long-term development. 

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

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 children do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. 

Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality 

rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway 

Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness 

of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own 

perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming 

equipment and occurs during worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998). When teens were 

asked whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 

teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 

attributed to that exposure. The authors also 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 judgment, 

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 cohort 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 the focus group, when asked whether they 

washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did 

not have the time and/or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 

participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they 

appeared to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

122

was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 

machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 

al., 2004).

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning 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 between behaviors 

and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, 

but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). The 

cognitive changes that occur 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 

establishment 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 will 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 provided in Section 4.6 and Section 

4.8. 

4.3.1 Acute Exposures and Effects

The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 

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

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

ways, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al., 2010). 

Exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute 

symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more 

severe effects. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. 

Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and 

dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). 

Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness 

(Roberts and Reigart, 2013). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 chronic 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 reporting 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, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 

were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 

and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye 

contact. 

Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 

high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 

period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 

least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. 

Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 

and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases3. 

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 handlers. 

These are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm 

families; many others, including some cancers, also have an association with pesticide exposure. 

The discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 4.6, because 

 

3 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

124

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 anomalies, 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 studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 

the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 

publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 

suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 

Potential Health Effects in Children

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

pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important 

effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) studies 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

125

have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 

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

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

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

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

Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain 

tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 

often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 

occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 

application. 

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 maturation of the cerebral cortex through 

synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 

connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases

the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 

during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 

particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). Adolescents 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 full lifetime. 

Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 

development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 

are looking at pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 

outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and 

neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 

 The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 

Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 

blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 

outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 

pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 

comparisons between pre- and post-cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 

 The Mount Sinai NYC cohort 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 overlapped with the cancellation of residential 

uses of chlorpyrifos. However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

126

phase-out of residential uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their 

publications. 

 The Center for Health Assessment 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 multiple pathways such as occupational exposures and take-home 

exposures. This team has associated urinary metabolites with some birth and 

neurodevelopmental outcomes. 

Most relevant to the WPS rule is the CHAMACOS cohort. The CHAMACOS cohort, being 

studied by researchers 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 exposure during pregnancy 

on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi et al., 

1999; Bradman et al., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and their children 

(Bradman et al., 2005; Eskenazi et al., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2004; Young and 

Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2007). These studies have 

investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on fetal growth 

and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child 

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 maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 

commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 

(Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed 

to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 

with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al., 2007), abnormal 

reflexes (Young et al., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al., 2004). 

Similar research in other cohorts is being 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).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

127

Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (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 metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 

associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al., 2010). Similar 

associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 

chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 

pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al., 2006, Lovasi, 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 potential 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 without 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 estimates of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 

these quantified estimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide 

exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 

sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide 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 have 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 probably 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 workers 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 seek 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

128

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 mitigation, 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 fields 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 exposure 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 

children. 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 exposures 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 can be 

quantified to be between $575,000 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 quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 

handlers associated with acute pesticide 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 proportion of pesticide 

incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of reported 

incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 4.5.2, 

under-reporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated benefits. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 by 

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 severity 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. 

Information 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-Industry 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 to create a national information resource of patientlevel 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 professionals5.

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 pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 

particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before an occupational pesticiderelated illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 

treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 

the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report 

the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 

related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 

tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al., 2001).

(1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

 

4 More information on the Healthcare 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.html
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

130

uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 

dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 

problems that mimic 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 and 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 handlers’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 

migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 

20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 

reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). 

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 

access 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 will 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 nondisabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 

immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 

five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 

some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

131

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. 

Migrant 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 seeking 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). 

Many agricultural workers average 6-day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 

sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 

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, physicians and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in 

ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 

those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 

poisonings for other causes, 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 related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be underreported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington, 1991). 

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

132

completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al., 2002, Baker et al., 1998). For 

example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 

healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 

becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in 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 Regulation project to 

familiarize 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, which may 

occur many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 

symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is 

common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 

underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are 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 reported 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 many 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

133

Table 4.5-1 Summary of Results from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990

Treated vs. Reported Toxic 

Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control 

Center and a Member 

Hospital (Harchelroad et al., 

1990)

Compare poison control 

center reports to actual toxic 

exposures presented to an 

urban area hospital

74%a

1983

Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of 

a Regional Poison 

Information Center (ChafeeBahamon et al., 1983)

Observing usage patterns of a 

poison information center by 

hospital staff over a two-year 

period

“Sufficiently Large”b

1987

Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison 

Control Centers in the 

United States (Veltri et al., 

1987)

Identifying the strengths and 

weaknesses of the American 

Association of Poison Control 

Centers National Data 

Collection System

67%

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 

Program

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 Surveyd

Notes: 

a The Emergency Medical Dispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional Poison Control Center; 

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 calculation 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 Survey of Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser 

estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 

70 percent (Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national 

scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

134

small-farm workers are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deaths are also unaccounted for 

within the survey. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, 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 certain 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 control 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 variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 

similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 

among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 

hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 

hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 

poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases.

The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may 

occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 

could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 

injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

poisonings may be consistently low.

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 among 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 incidents involving fewer than five 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

135

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, the study only covers cases that were already a part of the health care system, 

otherwise they could not have 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 medical 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 underreporting: 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 recorded, 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 incidents;

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes;

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 

effects;

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects;

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians;

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases.

There are 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 foreign-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 pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

136

incidents to their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and 

immigration status described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek 

medical care, which would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available 

to be counted in poisoning databases. 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 interact 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 Carolina 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 metabolites. 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 database 

covers 12 states from 1998-2011, although reporting varies from state to 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 nonoccupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR-Pesticides focuses on occupational 

pesticide incidents, and is of particular value in providing that information. A state SENSORPesticides 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, 

circumstances 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 SENSOR-Pesticides system.

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

137

upon a rigorous case classification matrix that takes into account: the temporal relationship 

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 that 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 if 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 pesticiderelated illnesses and injuries. Case reports are received from physicians and via workers’ 

compensation records. The local County Agricultural Commissioner investigates 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 confidence 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 the CDPR PISP, which is an example of 

the fifth step in which exposure incidents can be underreported. Because the estimates of 

pesticide incidents avoided in Section 4.5.3 are based on SENSOR-Pesticides, these are incidents 

that are not included in our benefits estimates. The 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 that were found to be relevant for the WPS changes and proposed changes to the 

certification standards6is substantially smaller than the potentially relevant cases in the PISP 

data. From 2008 – 2011, the PISP data show 1,043 cases potentially relevant to at 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 compared 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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-Pesticides. 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 

exposure. A case must include two or more symptoms to be included in SENSORPesticides.

 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 SENSORPesticides 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 identified 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 included 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, the 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 incident 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 may 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 the 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 tips 

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. These figures indicate that 

many pesticide exposure incidents are not included in the data used for the quantified benefit 

estimates of this rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

139

Comparing SENSOR-Pesticides to PISP

The analysis of the differences between PISP and California cases in SENSOR-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 identified 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 information 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 SENSORPesticides, 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 cases that were in PISP but not SENSORPesticides. 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). 

Considering 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 SENSORPesticides 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 may 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 the SENSORPesticide 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 from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

140

avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 

underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 4.5.

4.5.3 Pesticide Incidents Avoided

As described above, the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational 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. This 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. Although 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 agricultural 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 incidents avoided by this rule, we need to 

scale the data from the SENSOR-Pesticides states to the national level. If we let PIs,l be the 

number of preventable incidents in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and FWs be the number of 

farmworkers in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, then we can define RPs,l = PIs,l/FWs, 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, RPn,l, is equal to RPs,l. Therefore, we can estimate the 

national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RPn,l by the number of farmworkers 

nationally. We can do a similar estimation using farms, rather than farmworkers. 

RPs,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 SENSORPesticides states, 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 national 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 certified 

applicators or applicators under their direct supervision. These applicators are subject to separate 

regulations, which are also being revised. To avoid double counting avoided incidents, EPA 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

141

reviewed each of the RUP cases to determine whether it should 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 use 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 related 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 industry 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, represented 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 initially 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 incident 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

142

EPA also reviewed all of the cases to identify 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 relevant 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 rule

• 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 final 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 assigned 

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 compliance 

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

143

ambiguity about whether the final WPS provisions would prevent the circumstances. 

Many 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 application 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 prevented 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 compliance 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 worker 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, and 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 PISP 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 lower 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 incidents 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:
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

144

• Incidents 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 

worker 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 

about 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. 

• Incidents 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 example, 

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 involving 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. Another 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 rule changes, as discussed above. The higher 

estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly preventable after the rule 

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

145

Table 4.5-2: Estimated SENSOR-Pesticides Cases Avoided, 2008 – 2011

Likelihood of being avoided by 

Rule Changes

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, for every 1,000 farmworkers in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, 

there are an estimated 0.050 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 incidents. 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 (RPn,l = RPs,l) times the number of farms or farmworkers nationally. These 

calculations yield an estimate of annual pesticide incidents prevented by the rule of 99 on the low 

end, and 162 on the upper end. This estimate accounts only for reported incidents, which are 

likely to be a small proportion of the total number of incidents. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 

Farmworkers

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 1,108,211

farmworkers or 127,664 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 be 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 using 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 cases from SENSOR-Pesticides states is not even. 

Specifically, California 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.

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

147

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 incident 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 example, 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 – 10.9 

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 result 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 SENSOR 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 costs 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 incidents depends on the severity of 

the effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 

require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are 

more likely to seek medical treatment. 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

Vi

Av = E[MedCosti

] + VPLi

where Vi

Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the case, 

and VPLi 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[MedCosti

] = Prob(HCF|i) × [OutPtnti + InPtnti

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

148

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost only includes expenses at 

health care facilities, so any self-treatment expenses will be underestimated.

The value of lost productivity is

VPLi= (ωw∙work + ωH∙housekeeping + ωL∙leisure)∙DURi

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

The value of a reduction in premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). 

The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk 

experienced by a large number of people (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 categories 

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 to 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 reason 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 169 76.5%

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 49 22.2%

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 3 1.4%

Category S-1: Death 0 0.0%

Total 221 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2008 - 2011
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

149

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 days), compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual 

impairment is present (although 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 

requires 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 exposure to one or more 

pesticides.

Given the distribution of effects 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 

number 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 created using the number of 

farms and the number of farmworkers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 76 67 124

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 22.2% 12 22 19 36

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% 54 99 87 162

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 4.5-13). 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 activities.” 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 individuals not returning to their original health. Obviously, these longer term 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

151

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 financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 

farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 

paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 

jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 

greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 

because agricultural work is often seasonal.

In Table 4.5-5, estimates of the number 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 

hospitalizations, 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 length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 

work, household activities, and leisure. 

Direct Medical Costs

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by

E[MedCosti

] = Prob(HCF|i) × [OutPtnti + InPtnti

]

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

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 percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity 

level). As our measure of the probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we 

use the share of cases from 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 are more likely to be reported 

to SENSOR-Pesticides. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

152

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 132 169 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 2012. 

For Diagnosis Related Group 243 (Poisoning by Substances other than Medicine) the average 

charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $35,6237. 

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 level 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 exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is 

estimated to be $88.92. These data reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that 

Medicaid has authorized for those services. This may be an underestimate, which would imply 

that the outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment 

costs. 

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

treatment, are shown in Table 4.5-7.

 

7 The inpatient costs can be queried here: 

http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp?Id=B97AB29AA72E4376&Form=DispTab&GoTo=MAINSEL&JS=Y

8The average facility charge for all providers in 2009 - 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

153

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 $35,711.92

Source: EPA estimation.

1Calculated 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[VPLi

] = (ωwwork + ωHhousekeeping + ωL

leisure) × DURi

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

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, 2013a), 

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, 2013b), 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 measured as the weighted average wage rate for handlers and 

farmworkers, weighted using the number of each in 2012 (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 housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 

(BLS, 2013a). 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.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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$16.10c$88.69

Housekeeping 1.78 a$11.23d$19.99

Leisure 8.71 b$19.15e$166.77

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $275.45

Sources:

a BLS, 2013b, 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

cEPA Estimates – see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2013a, 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.

eCalculated 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 work9. 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 description 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 sustain 

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/pestsevindexv6.pdf
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

155

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[VPLi]

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

aThe 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, 4.5-11, 4.5-12 and 4.5-13. For each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct 

medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of premature mortality multiplied by the 

number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity levels to estimate the total avoided 

costs for the rule. Tables 4.5-10 and 4.5-11 show the estimates based on extrapolation from 

SENSOR-Pesticides states to national estimates based on the number of farmworkers, and Tables 

4.5-12 and 4.5-13 show the estimates based on the number of farms. The low end estimates are 

based on the low end estimates of medical and productivity costs and the low end estimate of the 

number of prevented cases, while the high end estimates are based on higher estimates of 

medical and productivity costs and the high-end number of prevented cases.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 4.5-11: “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 76 $69.45 $826.34 $68,134 

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 22 $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 99 $159,681

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

157

Table 4.5-12: “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 67 $69.45 $413.17 $32,336 

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 19 $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 87 $86,677

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

Table 4.5-13: “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 124 $69.45 $826.34 $111,078 

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 36 $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 162 $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 farmworker

 between $404,000 and $1.1million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 

based on the incident rate per farmworker
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

158

 between $740,000 and $2.2 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 

based on the incident rate per farm

 between $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) pesticide 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. This underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward.

In Table 4.5-14, 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 farm. 

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 4.5-14 shows a range of benefit estimates 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 4.5-14 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 per farmworker (compare 

tables 4.5-10 through 4.5-13). If we assume 10% reporting, using the estimates based on 

incidents per farmworker from tables 4.5-10 and 4.5-11, the estimate of prevented cases would 

range from a low of 536 to a high of 995. The estimates of benefits are $575,000 to $1.6 million.

Table 4.5-14. 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.

Even without underreporting, the estimates are undervalued. The estimates are based solely on 

the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. We are unable to measure the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

159

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 represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected.

All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section include only the effects of reduced 

illness from acute exposure based only on the cases that were included in the SENSORPesticides database – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section, which will 

discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide 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 society with the least ability to 

absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 

farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 

a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively 

greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families live

below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and 

average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 

consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005).

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 previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

are chronic health effects 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 this 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

160

section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) 

of improved chronic health conditions, i.e., chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 

This section presents evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure 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 premature 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 populations 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 pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposurechronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. Therefore, 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 epidemiology 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), National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other 

collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 

including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 

array of potential illnesses. A study in Norway to investigates 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. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine 

countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from pesticide exposure 

and other causes (Leon, et al., 2011). 

Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 

complicated by many factors. These include 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. Many epidemiologic studies that include 

certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 

other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, lawful

use of pesticides; however, misuse does occur (Bell et al., 2006). These certified applicators that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

161

form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 

workers and handlers. 

Another complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 

implemented risk mitigation measures including requirements 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 

withdrawn 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 relevant period for 

investigating chronic effects with typically long latency periods such as cancer. As a result, 

studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with caution when 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 

handlers and brought into the home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential 

for “take home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an 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 studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 

evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health 

impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 

pesticides, but 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 designed to protect against agricultural worker 

or handler exposures even when the current state of the science does not support action on 

individual chemicals.

In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from 

pesticide 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 either the relative 

strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of studies available, or the 

relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. 

Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, 

due to the state of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, estimates of 

the quantitative benefits from the final rule are not possible.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

162

A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from reduced 

chronic exposure is presented in Section 4.8.

4.6.1 Cancer Risks

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

various peer-review bodies, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites, with plausible 

biological mechanisms identified through experimental toxicology studies. Many 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 exposures 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 exposures and 

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

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

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

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

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

section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between pesticide exposure 

and these cancer effects. 

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a 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 exposures 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 cancers of the 

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for 

example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 

2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 

stomach 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 increased. For 

example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

163

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 general 

population, Koutros, et al. (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 

lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 

population-based case-control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al., 2008). 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 Bassil et al. review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

risks were reported from several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007).

Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of 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 between 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 

farms and with other significant related exposures.

Prostate Cancer 

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 

disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

prostate cancer, which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

164

members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010a). Case-control analysis within the AHS 

suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 

only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al., 2003). Additional followup within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with exposure to certain pesticides

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 released indicate that a genetic 

variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). These genetic variations do not fully explain the 

cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may play an 

important role. Overall, however, across studies published 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 the 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. However, 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 risk for the cohort 

is lower than the population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between 

pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

165

4.6.2 Non-Cancer Health Effects

Many epidemiological 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 outcomes 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.

Neurological 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 disease 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-reporting, 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 an increase in one or more neurological 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 effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh 

et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the relationship 

between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and neurological effects in children 

through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et al., 2011) reviews the possible 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

166

relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological 

symptoms. Despite the associations reported in the reviewed literature, the authors acknowledge 

uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear 

biologically plausible mechanism of action, among other study characteristics.

Respiratory Function

Several studies have shown 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 agricultural 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 pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with 

early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 

(Salameh et al., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms.

Chronic 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 months at a time, with coughing that 

expels sputum from the airways. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant 

association between eleven pesticides and chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an 

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 benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 4.6 above). In 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

167

general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and chronic

illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify the expected 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 symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, 

weight loss, fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment 

for NHL, has a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National 

Cancer Institute, 2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is 

often fatal. The five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of 

people diagnosed with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011).

Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 

prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 

pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 

disease are great, in addition to the direct 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., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 

estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slowergrowing 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 

an under-estimate of the true cost of illness. 

The next section details the break-even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 

potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid 

illness or death. 

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, preventing only a few pesticide-related illnesses 

annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate enough in 

benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the quantified 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

168

estimate of benefits from 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 consider nonHodgkin’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 association with pesticide exposure and for 

which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer-reviewed literature or for which 

willingness to pay estimates may 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 illness would need to be in order for 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 benefits 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 to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures 

to pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 

Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in 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, 2010b; 

EPA, 2006c; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented 

illness 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., gastrointestinal 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 as 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 

unable 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 indirect, i.e., they influence 

behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

169

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 cases) could be attributable to pesticide 

exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 

and their families. Relative to other studies of the effects of occupational exposure to chemicals, 

studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 

specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 

by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 

also difficult with this mobile population, 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 report 

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 applicators 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 results 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 have 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 differ 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. The 

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 worker 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 plausible for the 

farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

170

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 break-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 have 

shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 

not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing 

observational studies in the farm worker population. 

To estimate the break-even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 

disease incidence, which describes how many cases of specific diseases 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 costs” to reduce the risk of illness;

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

activities; and

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering.

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 

are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 

the WTP estimates presented here. 

Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 

consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For 

example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 

non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 

benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves applying available estimates of WTP for 

preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

171

For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 

EPA uses a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $9.5 million (in 2012 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 (PrevShare) 

times the number of cases:

Chronic Benefits = ∑ωi∙ PrevCasesi

i

= ∑ωi∙ PrevSharei∙ Casesi

i

where ωi can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the breakeven analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or 

equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute benefits. 

The break-even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the estimated 

cost (Cost) and the estimated acute benefits (Acute):

ChronicBE ≥ 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 acute benefits, ChronicBE. A simplifying 

assumption is that PrevSharei 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 smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with tobacco 

smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect 

on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShareLung Cancer is 10% of 

the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10 – 15% 

of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al., 2008).

4.8.3 Data

To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 

the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 

The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 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 estimate 

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

172

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 

non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 

21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al., 2011). An 

estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non-fatal lymphoma of $5.5 million 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, 20102015), 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 in 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, 

20102015). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal 

cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 

overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 

incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 

al., 2003; Koutros et al., 2010a).

An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 

Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 

is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 

appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 

lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al. (2006) 

estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 

Kutikova et al. (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 

under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 

yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $940,000. 

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer 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 treatment than those found in 

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

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 mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 

life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 

Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year, but only 639 deaths per 

year (Centers for Disease ControlCDC, 2012a). These figures 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 disease, rather than new cases that occur in a given 

year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the incidence of the chronic bronchitis, 

and using 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. Past EPA 

economic analysis has provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The 

Economic 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, 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 

the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14th leading cause of 

death in the United States10, 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, 2011; and University of Maryland Medical Center 2013). 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 some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 

mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. For Parkinson’s disease,the 

WTP is $1,000,000 in 2012 dollars, which is WTP of $800,000 in 2003 dollars to avoid chronic 

bronchitis 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 

 

10 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et 

al., 2010).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

174

curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a noncancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 

nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 

reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for estimating 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 $1,000,000 here. Moreover, 

possible fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis.

Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 

common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United StatesU.S.

Cancer Statistics, 2012). 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 from 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 (Section 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 have 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 peerreviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 

analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal 

lung cancer. This will be the same value ($1,000,000) used for Parkinson’s disease, because 

they come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic 

Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005)11.

Asthma

Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 

difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al., 2012) , is another common 

respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al., 2008)). 

Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 

 

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 ranges from $220,000 to $950,000 and for the latent disease the estimates range from 

$40,000 to $2.36 million. This study is not yet published and therefore the results are used here for illustrative 

purposes only. Hammitt and Liu (2004) provide estimates for WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a Taiwanese 

population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute. Because the 

estimates are for a non-US population they are also used here for illustrative purposes only. Finally, Itaoka, et al. 

(2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working paper and 

therefore illustrative only. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

175

ControlCDC, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, 

and asthma incidents do not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. 

CDC estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 

(Centers for Disease ControlCDC, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new 

cases of asthma are 480,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 –

2009 divided by nine years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths 

caused by asthma (Centers for Disease ControlCDC, 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 $3,100 (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 case12.

Table 4.8-1. Information for Calculating Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided

Disease

WTP to Avoid 

Disease, ωi

($1000)

Annual Cases from 

All Causes

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 5,500 49,000

Fatal NHL 9,500 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 940 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 9,500 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 1,000 60,000

Curable Lung Cancer 1,000 36,000

Fatal Lung Cancer 9,500 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 9,500 640

Asthma 105 480,000

Fatal Asthma 9,500 3,400

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (20102015); 

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease 

ControlCDC, (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 analysis, 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.

 

12 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provide more recent 

estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

176

Reducing the national rate of these selected illnesses by 0.005% (and the rate of lung cancer by 

0.0005%) 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 

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 0.0052% (0.00052% 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 0.005% would reduce the 

number of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases 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 11.2 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 0.03 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 24.0 cases, and fatal asthma cases 

by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the reduction in other 

diseases, or 0.0005%, 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 much 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 workers and handler face illness equal to their share of the population. The share 

is about 0.65%, based on the 1,995,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US 

Census Bureau, 2013). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers required to reach the 

break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. A reduction in these 

illnesses of just under 0.78% (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 0.65% 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 the WPS needed reach the breakeven point. In dollar 

terms the $64.9 million per year to break even represents an annual WTP per farmworker of 

about $32.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

177

Table 4.8-2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis

Disease

Annual 

Cases

Incidence

(per 100,000) 1

Annual Cases –

Farmworkers2

“Break-Even” 

Avoided Cases

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s 

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 317 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 11.7 233 0.183

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,228 0.963

Fatal Bronchitis 640 0.2 4 0.03

Asthma 480,000 155.5 3,102 24.20

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 22 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, 

2013).

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 associations between the diseases discussed here and pesticide 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 rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general 

population. For this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, 

based on the AHS. The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide 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 different: farmworkers may be more 

likely to be exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. 

Pesticide handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to 

certified applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be 

exposed than are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against 

pesticide exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of 

these differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher 

or lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 

implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 

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

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 1.2413. Using the 

1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general 

population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 

AHS population. 

If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 

likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 

rates shown in Table 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 cases 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 214 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 population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010a) report a 

standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 

estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 

procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 

be about 18.57 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.47 cases annually would change the 

incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.45 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 

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

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 

about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 

population. Reducing cases to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the 

estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227.0 to about 225.8 per 100,000, while the 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 breakeven point, the rate of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for 

the general population.

As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 

higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two 

exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 

determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al., (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 

among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 

association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 

but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds 

ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 

exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those may not reflect the lowlevel 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 

diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 

of the general population (Alavanja et al., 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are

generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 

If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.078% (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 27.03 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 the farmworker population, the break-even 

point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 

cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 

These diseases discussed here are chronic 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% discount 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%.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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

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 

otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 

expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 

Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Training and Notification (Final Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.02; 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 respondent 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 changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 

frequency of required information exchange. The program changes include modifications to 

restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 

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 where 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 final

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

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 $63.8 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

 $528 to $587 million 

over 10 years at 3% 

discount rate

 $60.2 to $66.9

million/year

$41.5 to $47.0

million/year

$72.6 to $81.0

million/year EA Chapter 3.3

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs

TRANSFERS none
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

183

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 entities.

 The rule will affect approximately 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.

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 

increase by $50, but this is about 0.2 percent of the cost of a part-time 

employee.

EA Chapter 3.4
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

184

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 Bailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012. 

Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001–

2010. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. 

At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, 

Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and 

prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 

1;157(9):800-14.

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 Epidemiol, 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 and 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. 

Environ Health Perspect 115:1254-1260.

Arcury, T A, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Chen, QM Vallejos, L Galván, DB Barr, and SA 

Quandt. 2010. Repeated pesticide exposure among North Carolina migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 802–813.

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health 

Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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, Journal 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 pesticideinduced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123-5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 

pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 

Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Time Series." Environmental 

International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209.

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005. 

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study 

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079.

Bell EM, DP Sandler, MC Alavanja. 2006. High pesticide exposure events among farmers and 

spouses enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Saf Health. May;12(2):101-

16, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724787.

Blair, A., 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 improving fatality risks 

and asthma symptoms: Values for children and adults of all ages, Resource and Energy 

Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410-425

BLS. 2013a. Current Population Survey: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary 

workers 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 Labor 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. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed March, 2015.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95.

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. 

Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and 

TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and 

after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect. 

113 12 1802-1807.

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, 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. 2009. 

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children 

Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental 

Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331-49.

Bradman, A, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003. 

Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker 

of prenatal exposure: A valadation study. Environ. Health Perspect. 111,14 1779-1782

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 pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(12): 883-898.

Cameron, TA, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnson. 2009. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk 

Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness, working paper, June 2009. 

http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/vita/Cameron_DeShazo_Johnson_0619091.pdf.

CDC. 2011. Vital Signs, Asthma in the US. Centers for Disease Control, May. 

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/index.html

CDC. 2012a. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Includes: Chronic Bronchitis 

and Emphysema. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/copd.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance, 

Subpart A – Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, at 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13.

Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 

396-400.

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's 

lymphoma. JAgromedicine. 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285; 

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male 

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 

118(1):92-6.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and 

exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect 

112:142-147.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work-Related 

Pesticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center. Available here, with more 

recent data available in the docket: 

http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/OccupationalHealth/OccupationalHealth

Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 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 Perspect 110:A787-792.

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 

2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, .J Occup Environ Hyg. 

2(7):357-67, July.

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 

MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

188

D&B. 2014. Database of business information maintained 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 Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and 

Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

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 Extension 

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/factsheets/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. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327-

0024; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. 

What Employers Need to Know. EPA/735-B-06-002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005, 

Reprinted June 2006.

EPA. 2006c. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. Office of Water (4606-M) 

EPA 815-R-06-014 October 2006. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

189

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf.

EPA. 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. 2010b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of 

Water (4607-M) EPA 815-R-10-001 June 2010. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) 

Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 

123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

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 exposure and fetal 

growth and length of gestation in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect. 

112:1116–1124 

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in 

young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798.

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

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 nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376.

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007. 

Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am 

J Ind Med 50:969–979.

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 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641.

Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers. At 

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 24, 

2011. 

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai. 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag: 

Choice Experiments for Public- and Private-Goods Contexts in Japan, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-07-07-

REV.pdf.

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 

Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self-reported 

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364-74.

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No. 

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June.

Koutros S, 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 

Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098-105.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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/23171882.

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors 

of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ 

Health. 22(1):14-26, Feb.

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 

associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years 

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural 

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov.

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004. Cancer incidence 

among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J 

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide use and 

colorectal cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer 121(2):339-46, Jul 

15.

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 

Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G 

Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P 

Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair. 

2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public 

Health. 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29.

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, 

Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as 

determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment Am J Public Health. 2011 

Jan;101(1):63-70

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

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 Agricultural 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/nonhodgkin-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.

National 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 exposure 

in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work 

Environ Health. 31(2):89-96, April.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program. Updated February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program. Updated February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program. February 2011. 

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program. 

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using 

a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 

16(6), pages 667-683, December.

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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. Statistics 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 Mothers' 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 

Agricultural 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 First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 

and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of 

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314–320. 

Roberts, JR, and JR Reigert. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Sixth Edition, 

available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/recognition-andmanagement-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: Health Insurance 

Coverage and Access to Care, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available here: 

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Migrant-and-Seasonal-Farmworkers-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and-Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards 

and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159-169.

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

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 Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory 

symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J. 22(3):507-12, Sept. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143.

Salazar MK, M Napolitano, JA Scherer, and LA McCauley. 2004. Hispanic adolescent 

farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res. 

26(2):146–166. 

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J López, G Kavanagh-Baird, M Minkler, and 

B Eskenazi. 2009. A Community-Based Participatory Worksite Intervention to Reduce 

Pesticide Exposures to Farmworkers and Their Families. American Journal of Public 

Health S578-S581, Vol 99, No. S3, Nov.

Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Bassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health 

effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam 

Physician 53(10): 1712-20.

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning, 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A.

Smith, R, K Klonsky, and R DeMoura. (2009) Sample costs to produce iceberg lettuce, Central 

Coast Region. University of California Cooperative Extension publication LT-CC-09-2. 

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/lettuceicecc09.pdf.

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. 

Steinberg, 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 farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 51(1):69-81, Jan.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok 

GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez 

HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and 

Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72.

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-2013-april-18-five-dayslater-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://journals.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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

195

U.S. Cancer 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; 2010. Available 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. 2011. , 2012. Medline Plus: Chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease. PubMed Health,Bronchitis. Available here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/. Accessed September 20, 

2011. 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 Medical Center. 2013. Parkinson's disease, website: available here: 

http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/parkinsons-disease

US 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

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler, 

and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non-smoking farm women in the 

agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American 

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is 

pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results. 

Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340. 

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. "Interpretation and Uses of Data 

Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389-97.

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural 

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 

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

196

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in 

human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 11(3-4):242-59, Mar. 

Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody, 

and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 

Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21.

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 

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE 

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 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. "Pesticides 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 McDonnell, PK Mills, LD Mull, DL Nordstrom, B Outterson, DP 

Slesinger, MA Smith, L Stallones, C Stephens, A Sweeney, K Sweitzer, SW Vernon, and 

A Blair. 2001. Development of a life events/icon calendar questionnaire to ascertain 

occupational histories and other characteristics of migrant farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 

40(5):490-501, Nov.

Zahm, SH, and MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

Suppl 3:893-908, June.