TRAIN-18, 19, and 20.  Training verification.  Under these potential requirements, EPA would end voluntary programs to issue training verification cards.  The cost of the program is the opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them; EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards.  About 22 states and territories currently participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards.  Of the representative states, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions have requested verification cards.  For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation.  Arkansas, along with five of the seven states it represents, participates, as does California and Colorado, along with one of the two states it represents.  Baseline costs for these three regions, South, California, and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the states.  Baseline costs for the other three regions, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are calculated using a 50 percent participation rate because about half the states in these regions participate in the current program.  Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of participation, EPA estimates that eliminating the training verification program (TRAIN-18) could save about $567,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards.  Savings per WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only occur in states currently participating in the program.

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

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

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

3.3.4	Hazard Communication

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

Table 3.3-16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered in this category.  The table shows the present value of regional compliance cost for the potential requirements, PV(RC P), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B).  The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines.  The most costly item considered is the requirement to provide workers with crop sheets, which describe the ways in which a worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM-04).  The requirement is estimated to cost $13.0 million annually.  The proposed change from central posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM-01) entails comparatively low cost at $1.1 million per year.

Table 3.3-16.  Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1.
Potential Requirement
                                   PV(RC[P])
                                   PV(RC[B])
                                    PV(RIC)
                                Annualized RIC

                                    $1,000
                                    $1,000
01 Application Information Availability
164,954
154,908
10,046
1,143
02 Pesticide Information Availability  -  SDS and label
131,032
84,201
46,831
5,330
03 Pesticide Information Availability  -  label
59,865
59,791
14,074
1,602
04 Pesticide Information Availability  -  crop sheets
163,774
49,303
114,471
13,029
05 Record Keeping  -  2 years
29,894
3,677
26,217
2,984
06 Record Keeping  -  5 years
32,770
3,677
29,093
3,311
07 Provide Crop Sheet with Label 2
318,330
293,020
25,310
2,881
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.
[2]	Requirement would apply to registrants at a national scale only.

In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation diverges from the typical method.  Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in Appendix A.  Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 applications per year.  Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the number is not unreasonable at the farm level.  The following examples show how EPA arrived at this number.
   * Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa.  According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9).  Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean.  If fields are about 40 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn  -  soybean rotation with some fields in continuous corn.  Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012).  This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical farm.
   * Fruit crops in Washington.  There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit production, implying about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 32).  This suggests a typical farm might have four blocks of fruit 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, 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 an herbicide treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments.  Insecticides and fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications.  Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, however.  A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce 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, 2008b).  The average across all farms, given 12 applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is about 20 applications per farm.  This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average.

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

These costs may be underestimated.  Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often necessary for a single application because the central area is outdoors and the posting can be subject to weathering.
Table 3.3-17.  Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application Information.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Gather/record information
                                   $28.21/hr
                                   0.083 hr
15.4
$ 36.26
Information sheet
                                  $ 0.09/sheet
                                    1 sheet
15.4
$ 1.39
Post application information
                                   $28.21/hr
                                   0.017 hr
15.4
$ 7.25
costr,i,a[B]

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

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

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

Table 3.3-18.  Regional Costs for HAZCOM-01, Application Information, Year 1.
Region
                                   N WPS est
                                     RC P
                                     RC B
costr,i,a[B]
$ 44.90

costr,i,a[P]
$48.53
                                    $1,000
South
58,804
2,640,541
2,853,784
California 1
24,469
1,187,480
1,187,480
Southwest
12,629
567,096
612,893
Subtropical
9,866
443,044
478,823
Midwest
85,641
3,845,620
4,156,181
Northeast
40,650
1,825,340
1,972,750
Ohio Valley
91,166
4,093,724
4,424,322
Texas/Mountain West 1
48,543
2,355,808
2,355,808
Northwest
22,890
1,027,861
1,110,869
U.S.
394,658
$17,986,514
$19,152,909
Source:	EPA estimation.
[1]	Baseline costs are $48.53 as for the potential requirement.

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

HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04.  Pesticide-specific information.  Agricultural employers are currently required to post information about pesticide applications, including the active ingredient used and the product name and registration number.  The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be collected and made available.  The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and copy the material.  The SDS is typically available with the label at distributors and on line.  Four representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be available.  EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually.  The cost is proportional to the number of applications.

An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM-03).  The cost of this option would be just over $1.6 million annually.  A second alternative, HAZCOM-04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications.  This information would be crop-chemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given typical cropping practices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure.  These sheets would likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical.  EPA estimates the cost of this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm.

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

HAZCOM-07.  Provision of crop sheets.  To support the potential requirement for crop-chemical specific hazard information (HAZCOM-04), this proposal would require registrants to provide additional safety information along with the pesticide label, which provides use directions.  This would require the development of new printing templates, which would be a one-time cost for each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for which the crop is registered.  EPA would expect to phase this in over a three year period to allow registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels.  It would also increase printing costs over the entire time 10-year time period we analyze because of the additional volume of material.  EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of about $25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $2.9 million per year.

3.3.5	Notification

Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employers who must provide their employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety information.  The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information.  As with hazard communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications.

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

Table 3.3-19.  Present Value of Costs, Notification Requirements 1.
Potential Requirement
                                   PV(RC[P])
                                   PV(RC[B])
                                    PV(RIC)
                                Annualized RIC

                                    $1,000
                                    $1,000
01 REI > 48 hours Warning Sign
420,709
322,892
97,816
11,133
02 REI > 72 hours Warning Sign
392,487
322,892
69,594
7,921
03 REI <= 4 hours Oral Notification (greenhouses)
980
1,065
-84
-10
04 Record Keeping for Oral Notification  -  2 years
177,198
0
177,198
20,168
05 Record Keeping for Oral Notification  -  5 years
180,074
0
180,074
20,495
06 Revise Warning Sign ("Entry restricted Area")
19,535
18,663
873
99
07 Revise Warning Sign (Skull and Cross Bones)
46,923
18,663
28,260
3,216
08 Posting Warning Signs w/in 100′ worker housing
99,064
99,064
0
0
09 Posting Warning Signs every 100′
2,394,818
99,064
2,295,755
261,294
10 Oral Information for Entry restricted  -  workers
10,295
4,162
6,134
698
11 Oral and Written Information for Entry restricted  -  workers
13,547
4,162
9,386
1,068
12 Record Keeping for Entry restricted  -  workers 2 years
4,120
0
4,120
469
13 Record Keeping for Entry restricted  -  workers 5 years
6,996
0
6,996
796
14 Revise Safety Poster
8,729
7,777
951
108
15 Safety Poster, - Worker Decontamination
25,336
7,777
17,558
1,998
16 Safety Poster, - Handler Decontamination
14,669
7,777
6,891
784
17 Safety Poster with REI signs
49,872
7,777
42,094
4,791
18 Clarify Notifications by Commercial Applicator
316,546
316,546
0
0
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

NOTIFY-01 and 02.  Posting warning signs.  Two potential requirements require the physical posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect.  The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours.  An alternative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the REI exceeds 72 hours.  Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e., both verbal communication and warning signs.  Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications and these new requirements would not apply to those operations.  Costs are expected to vary by farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to small-small farm is presented in Table 3.3-20, as an example.  EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made.  Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will have to be informed of the REI upon returning to work.  This means employers may have to provide multiple notifications.  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 already.  Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification.  EPA assumes that two signs are generally needed for posting.  We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY-08).  Signs will generally last for two years.  The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 77.1 percent (NASS, 2008).  The expected per-farm cost is estimated to be between $35 and $110 depending on the size of the farm.  There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season.

Table 3.3-20.  Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Oral Notification
                                   $28.21/hr
                                     3 min
14.3
$ 20.14
Signs
                                  $ 5.66 each
                                       2
0.307
$ 3.47
Post Sign
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    20 min
1.23
$ 11.54
Signs
                                   $ 5.66 per
                                       3
0.018
$ 0.30
Post Sign
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    30 min
0.071
$ 1.00
costr,i,a[B]

$ 36.45
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The costs associated with these potential 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 3.3-21 presents the calculations.  We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time.  Double notification is still required for ten percent of applications.  As a result, the expected per-establishment cost increases to between $70 and $110, where large farms with many workers are not expected to be impacted.  Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected per-worker cost decreases to $5 to $7.

Table 3.3-21.  Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Oral Notification
                                   $28.21/hr
                                     3 min
10.0
$ 14.09
Signs
                                   $ 5.66 per
                                       4
0.307
$ 6.94
Post Sign
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    20 min
4.91
$ 46.14
Signs
                                   $ 5.66 per
                                       6
0.018
$ 0.60
Post Sign
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    30 min
0.284
$ 4.01
costr,i,a[B]

$ 71.79
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of the time.  Per-establishment cost is calculated to be between $60 and $110 per year and per-worker cost to be between $6.00 and $8.00, depending on farm size.

Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $7.9 million annually if posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $11.1 million annually if posting is required for REIs over 48 hours.  The estimated incremental costs average $20.10 to $28.30 per year per non-greenhouse WPS farm across all farm sizes.

These estimates take into consideration the allowance that new signs are to be phased in by the third year.

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

NOTIFY-04 and 05.  Record keeping of oral notifications.  A potential addition to the WPS would require owners/operators to obtain acknowledgement from their employees that the employees were notified of REIs.  Under NOTIFY-04, these records would be kept for two years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept for five years.  As explained in NOTIFY-01 and 02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to post or orally inform employees of the REI.  The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, obtaining employees' signatures, and filing the document.  The annual frequency for each action is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, explained above.  The cost for large farms is estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost-effective to post fields when there are many workers.  There is also a per-worker cost for providing the signature, which EPA estimates to be $1.46 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per year for workers on large farms.  Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double notification products as explained under NOTIFY-03.  Greenhouse costs are estimated to be $3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year.

Table 3.3-22.  Per-Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs for NOTIFY-04, Keep Records of REI notifications.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Prepare copy of warning
                                     28.21
                                     0.033
15.0
14.12
Information sheet
                                     0.09
                                       1
15.0
1.35
Obtain acknowledgement
                                     28.21
                                     0.050
16.5
23.30
Store acknowledgement
                                     28.21
                                     0.017
15.0
7.06
Folder
                                     0.20
                                       1
0.75
0.15
costr,i,a[B]

$ 45.98
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY-04 is $20.2 million annually.  The average cost per WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $51.20 per year and is similar for small and large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10.  NOTIFY-05, with a five-year retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage container to hold the files.  EPA estimates the cost to be about $20.5 million per year with an average cost per WPS farm of $52.00 per year and $7.90 per year per greenhouse.

NOTIFY-06 and 07.  Revise warning signs.  EPA is considering revisions to warning signs posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI.  The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon and replace the words "Keep Out" with "Entry Restricted Area."  An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used.  For the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensive.  Nationally, this revision may cost about $99,000 per year.  Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30.  For NOTIFY-07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application-specific information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written.  This could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8.10 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS greenhouses, on average.  Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which they are required to post REI warning signs.

NOTIFY-08 and 09.  Posting warning signs.  Currently, when warning signs are posted, they must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if worker housing is adjacent to the field.  The number of access points to a field is highly variable, but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipment to enter.  We assume about 20 percent of farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing.  Posting signs is likely the exception, rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler.  The baseline costs, i.e., costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the material cost of the signs.  Signs can be reused, so most establishments probably only need two or three, i.e., to post one field at a time.  Greenhouses, however, must post warning signs for all pesticide applications and likely need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots simultaneously.

NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to engender any costs.

EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require posting warning signs every 100 feet around a treated area to alert workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09).  Size and shape of field are extremely variable, but as a scenario that might be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 40 acres in size.  Each side would be 1,320 feet, requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in total.  Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular one-acre plot.  Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates that this potential requirement could cost over $2.3 billion dollars over ten years at a three percent discount rate or about $261 million annually.  The annual incremental cost is estimated to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $660 for other WPS farms.

NOTIFY-10 and 11.  Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI.  Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the restricted-entry interval is in effect.  Workers must have either read the product labeling or been informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety.  NOTIFY-10 would permit oral instruction, but would require more detailed information be provided, which would require more time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information.  An alternative, NOTIFY-11 would require that the information also be provided in writing, in the form of crop sheets generated by the registrants.  EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about $698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIFY-11.  Per WPS farms, annual costs are expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively.

NOTIFY-12 and 13.  Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI.  Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively).  Record keeping is expected to cost about $469,000 per year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the documentation.  The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-14.  Revise pesticide safety information display.  The proposal would require agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact information for medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use.  The incremental cost of this action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which would be done by the WPS farm.  EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years.  The annualized cost is estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per year.  Costs may be somewhat overstated because signs are available free through EPA.

NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17.  Safety displays at decontamination sites.  These requirements would add additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supplies are located.  NOTIFY-15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms.  NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI warning signs are posted.  The cost of these requirements arises from the cost of new signs and the labor to post them.  EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be required.  EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2.  Table 3.3-23 presents EPA's estimates of the per-establishment unit costs, assuming that the requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average.  Large farms incur much higher cost for posting safety displays with REI signs because they likely post more frequently than do small farms.  See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02.  If safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the number of postings by shifting to oral notification.

Table 3.3-23.  Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites
Establishment
                                   Baseline
                         Worker Decontamination Sites
                                  (NOTIFY-15)
                         Handler Decontamination Sites
                                  (NOTIFY-16)
                                 With REI Signs
                                  (NOTIFY-17)
Small WPS Farm/Nursery
$ 2.23
$ 7.18
$ 3.54
$11.49
Small WPS Greenhouse

$31.17
Large WPS Farm/Nursery
$ 2.68
$ 9.15
$ 9.15
$34.37
Large WPS Greenhouse

$42.20
Source:  EPA estimates.

Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be $2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm.  Safety displays can be obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement.  Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4.8 million annually or $12.10 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-18.  Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers.  WPS currently requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that proper steps can be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field.  Further, if there are any changes to the application, e.g., delay in application, change of product (brand), the CPHE must immediately inform the client.  The latter requirement has raised concerns about the practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker safety is provided in a timely manner.  The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI begins.  It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance.  No costs are expected to arise from this revision.

Sensitivity Analysis
The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis.  That is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide applications per year instead of 20 applications.

The incremental costs for the potential requirements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications.  This is because the baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a fraction of the number of applications.  Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision.  The savings generated by allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications.  The cost of record keeping of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of applications.  The cost of providing more information upon early entry (NOTIFY-10 and 11) varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years (NOTIFY-12).  Maintaining records for five years (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number of applications because of fixed costs of storage.

The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications.  The cost of the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY-09) varies with the number of applications, but less than proportionally.  The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which would require safety displays with every REI warning sign.  The revisions to clarify when signs must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18) are not expected to entail costs regardless of the number of applications.

3.3.5	Age

EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions.   These restrictions could raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid employees in place of younger, lower paid staff.  In estimating the impact of these potential requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1.  The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the baseline is current labor costs.  Impacts are estimated as the difference with labor costs under the potential requirement.  Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category.

Table 3.3-24.  Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1.
Region
                                     NC[P]
                                     NC[B]
                                      NIC
                                Annualized NIC

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
01 Minimum Age of 16, Early Entry Workers
10,734
9,366
1,367
156
02 Minimum Age of 18, Early Entry Workers
15,974
9,618
6,356
723
03 Minimum Age of 16, Handlers 2
42,290
38,192
4,098
466
04 Minimum Age of 18, Handlers 2
65,019
38,192
26,827
3,053
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.
[2] 	Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline.

AGE-01 and 02.  Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI.  EPA is considering setting a minimum age for agricultural workers (other than immediate family members) who may enter areas subject to a REI.  Entry during a restricted-entry interval may occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities.  In this analysis, EPA has assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on average, half of the farm's workers will be engaged in associated tasks.  As it is unlikely that a farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any under-age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum age older for these limited events.  Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time.

As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker.  EPA has found no data regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age and experience would contribute to higher wages.  The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is used to represent the wage of adult laborers.  EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers would earn about 50% of the average wage.  Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as $5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds.  EPA notes that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer.

The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year.  A minimum age of 18 would impose costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm.  As noted above, this cost is unlikely to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm's labor management.

AGE-03 and 04.  Minimum age for pesticide handlers.  EPA is considering setting a minimum age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e., those who mix, load and/or apply pesticides.  There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides classified as Category I or II toxicity.  EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16-year minimum (NOTIFY-03) and an 18-year minimum (NOTIFY-04).

Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages.  The wage rate for adult handlers is from the BLS (2008).  EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on-farm to be $7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds.  The former is approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  Benefits, valued at 30 percent of total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates.  Among employees surveyed by the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- and 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older.  The survey further indicated that handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related activities.  Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year.

To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35.  This would be an upper bound, of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years of age.  For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $21.35 per year.

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner.  However, there are no data estimating the number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age.  It is likely that the proportion is smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely higher.  EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work.  Further, we assume that these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours per week.  This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment.  Labor costs assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage.

Table 3-3.25  Labor costs for Handlers, by Age
Age Category and Establishment
                                   Wage/Hour
                                 Hours Worked
                             Proportion of workers
                               Total Labor Cost
Baseline, WPS Farm
14-15 Year Old
10.41
50
0.004
1.92
16-17 Year Old
12.50
50
0.017
10.51
Total WPS farm

12.43
Baseline, CPHE

16-17 Year Old, CPHE
12.06
640
0.010
77.18
Minimum Age, 16, WPS Farm

16-17 Year Old
12.50
50
0.017
10.51
Adult
20.83
50
0.004
3.84
Total WPS farm

14.35
Minimum Age, 18

Adult, WPS
20.83
50
0.021
21.35
Adult, CPHE
20.10
640
0.010
128.64
Source:  BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations.

EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ one handler (see Section 3.3.2).  Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group.  Table 3.3-26 presents EPA's estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state requirements, RL[B], and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RL[P].  Incremental labor costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect and about $880,000 for CPHEs.

Table 3.3-26.  Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year Age Restriction, Year 1.
Region
                                 NWPS hndlr[B]
                                     RL[P]
                                     RL[B]

                                   ($1,000)
South
36,924
1,116
655
California
15,365
464
273
Southwest
7,930
240
141
Subtropical
6,195
187
110
Midwest
53,776
1,625
954
Northeast
25,525
771
453
Ohio Valley
57,245
1,730
1,016
Texas/Mountain West
30,481
921
541
Northwest
14,373
434
255
U.S.
247,815
7,489
4,398
Source:  EPA Estimations.

Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per CPHE.  Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about $466,000.  The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per WPS establishment.

These requirements could result in higher labor 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.

3.3.6	Entry

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide residues.  Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide applications occur.  Unlike the training and notification examples, which require farm operators, agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials.  These potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain places.  The primary cost of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management burden of scheduling work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts.  This burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the diversity of production activities in which the operation engages.  Estimates for the potential requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27.

Table 3.3-27.  Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1.
Region
                                     NC[P]
                                     NC[B]
                                      NIC
                                Annualized NIC

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
01 Restricted area of 25 to 100 ft during application for all agricultural establishments
0
0
0
0
02 Halt application if non-handler enters treatment area
0
0
0
0
03 Limit entry during emergencies to 4 hours
0
0
0
0
04 Limit entry during emergencies to 8 hours
0
0
0
0
05 Eliminate early entry exceptions
2,173,318
0
2,173,318
247,358
06 Monitoring handlers for chlolinesterase inhibition
137,368
3,394
133,975
15,248
07 Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting products
38,533
1,470
37,063
4,218
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

ENTRY-01.  Entry restricted area.  During an application, entry into the area being treated is restricted to appropriately attired handlers.  A proposed requirement defines the entry restricted area during an application on a WPS farm or forestry operation as extending 25 to 100 feet from the edge of the treated area, depending on the application method.  This restriction already applies to WPS nurseries and greenhouses and would only apply to area under control of the employer.  For a WPS farm, imposing the restricted area could affect the scheduling of work activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application.  This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments.

ENTRY-02.  Entry into a restricted area.  The proposed requirement specifies that a handler working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area.  Since current requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restriction simply clarifies the applicator's responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs.

ENTRY-03 and 04.  Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double notification products.  During agricultural emergencies, agricultural employers can send workers into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI.  One potential requirement (ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an individual worker could spend in an area treated with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02).  Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the time to eight hours.  Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts.  Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability 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.  Further, EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve double notification products, i.e., those requiring both oral notification and physical posting.  Thus, only a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a product in any given year.  Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be involved in an early entry event.  The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers if the time limit is reached.  This will involve some management burden, but the effect is not quantifiable.

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are needed.  Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration.  For example, a grower may need to reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, tasks that would not be of long duration on a small operation.

ENTRY-05.  Early entry exceptions.  Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by administrative action for `no contact,' `limited' contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for agricultural emergencies.  As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05).  The impact of this requirement would be to expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment.  This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial.  To characterize potential losses, EPA developed the following scenario:  an establishment may face a problem, which might be addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g., 25 percent.  The inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on those acres, e.g., five percent.  Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, including family farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to pesticide labels under the WPS.  In this case, EPA calculates that 9.8 percent of farms have early entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop farms, nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-using farms and the assumption that there is an early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications.

Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive to water and other stress than are field crops.  Farms at risk would include all farms using pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS.  According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including government payments) was $50.5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b).  From the special tabulation requested from NASS, there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b).  Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $260,000 per year and a five percent loss would be around $13,000.  Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss using these figures.

Table 3.3-28.  Per-Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY-05.
Action/Material
                              value of production
                               affected acreage
                                  likelihood
                                     cost
Five percent yield loss
                                    $13,024
                                      25%
                                     9.8%
$320.00
Total

$320.00
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for derivation of numbers.

Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement.  Under this scenario, the expected loss per establishment would be $320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e., the five percent loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage.  Extrapolating to the national level indicates losses of $247 million per year.

ENTRY-06 and 07.  Cholinesterase inhibition.  EPA considered two approaches that could address the issue of handler exposure to cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides.  ENTRY-06 would establish a monitoring program while ENTRY-07 would simply impose a limit on the time handlers could work with these chemicals.

Washington State's Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing program to monitor pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides.  Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period.  The employee can decline to participate.  ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states.  If the handler's cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such pesticides until levels return to normal.

Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential costs for a U.S. program.  The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the Northwest is presented in Table 3.3-29.  Washington reports that the voluntary program cost $115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses.  Given that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a per-handler cost of $55.14.  Based on the description of how the program follows up with an examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e., those employed on farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program.  The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region.

The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler's time that is spent getting tested.  Each participating handler must go to a medical center and submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate.  EPA assumes this takes about one and a half hours, on average, including travel and wait time.  Washington reports that 386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region.  The data also show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow-up tests, which implies that they spend 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time.  As shown in Table 3.3-29, the expected cost per WPS handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $13.32.

Table 3.3-29.  Per-WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring in NW.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Testing cost
                                $ 55.14/handler
                                       1
0.141
$ 7.76
Baseline blood test
                                  $ 20.83/hr
                                      1.5
0.141
$ 4.40
Follow-up blood test
                                   $ 20.83/hr
                                     2.07
0.027
$ 1.16
costr,NW,a[B]

$ 13.32
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55 for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers.  See Appendix A for details.  The baseline cost in all other regions is zero.

To estimate national participation in a cholinesterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates from the Washington program.  We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utilize pesticides each year.  We further estimate that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year.  We assume that the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops.  Thus, the expected per-WPS handler cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of follow-up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the baseline participation.  Expected cost per WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE handlers.

The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year.

In theory, a monitoring program would not be expected to affect the handlers' ability to work.  If inhibition were seen, a handler could still work with other classes of pesticides.  Nor would a program necessarily affect the grower's ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers would likely be available.  In practice, however, finding another application job or another handler at a particular moment could be problematic.  In 2007, only about one percent of participating Washington handlers showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely.

An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-07).  The primary cost of this approach would be tracking the time handlers spend with such products.  Data are not available for a precise estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the cost as follows.  Each handler, including self-employed handlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, a task that would take perhaps two minutes.  The employer would then need to document the accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three minutes per handler.  ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average, and about 30 percent of applications by CPHE handlers.  Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides.  Similarly, 51.0 percent of CPHE handlers  work with ChI products .  Given these assumptions, which may underestimate the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates the cost of tracking handlers' time to be about $4.2 million annually.  The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides.  CPHEs could face costs of around $80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes.  This does not include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches the limit and alternative jobs are not available.

3.3.7	Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable.  The potential requirements in this category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE.  Costs to establishments are mostly in additional materials such as additional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit testing.  Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping.  Some actions or material will be required of all WPS farms that hire handlers, because they are part of routine preparations.  Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually made.  Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of PPE.

Table 3.3-30.  PPE, Present Value of Costs 1.
Potential Requirement
                                     NC[P]
                                     NC[B]
                                      NIC
                                Annualized NIC

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
01 Respirator fit test
301,043
207,562
93,481
10,640
02 Eliminate early entry exceptions for CCA employees, WPS
52,052
52,047
5
0.5
03 Eliminate early entry exceptions for CCA employees, CCA
13,338
13,325
13
1
04 Revise closed-system standards
153,863
93,133
60,730
6,912
05 Contaminated PPE rendered unwearable
0
0
0
0
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

PPE-01.  Respirator fit test and medical evaluation.  Currently, employers are required to insure that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so.  Thus, in the baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time of an application.  The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of fit testing.  Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants.  CPHE handlers are fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers.

The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on-farm under provisions similar to OSHA requirements, including that those using respirators are medically cleared for their use.  The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening.  The actions and materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31.  The medical screening consists of a health survey that takes about 30 minutes to complete.  The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008).  The Agency assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large-small crop farms and one handler from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying about 60 percent of all handlers.  This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used pesticides have respirator requirements and growers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee.  Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 percent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow-up examination, which implies about 13.7 percent of all handlers.  The examination is expected to take about two hours, including travel and wait time.  The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007).  Once cleared, the handler takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time.  The material for the fit test costs about a dollar (OSHA, 2004).  As currently required, if the respirator is used, the employer must provide instructions on proper use.  Actual respirator use is likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however.  The expected cost-per WPS handler of the requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31.

Table 3.3-31.  Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Initial survey
                                   $20.83/hr
                                   0.5 hour
0.595
$ 6.19
Medical evaluation
                                   $42.91/hr
                                     5 min
0.595
$ 2.13
Time for follow-up exam
                                   $20.83/hr
                                    2 hour
0.137
$ 5.70
Follow-up medical exam
                                    $101.00
                                       1
0.137
$ 13.82
Time for fit test, with travel
                                   $20.83/hr
                                   1.5 hour
0.595
$ 18.58
Fit test material
                                     $1.00
                                       1
0.595
$ 0.59
Employer instructs on proper use
                                   $28.21/hr
                                     6 min
0.351
$ 0.99
Handler receives instructions on use
                                   $20.83/hr
                                     6 min
0.351
$ 0.73
costr,i,a[P]

$ 48.74
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test.  Since OSHA requirements already apply to commercial enterprises, this cost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost.  However, the employer of the CPHE handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the fit test and evaluation.  The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 per year.

EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $10.6 million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs.  The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost.

PPE-02 and 03.  Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs).  CCAs assist growers to plan production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities.  They may, for example, test for soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically damaging levels.  Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA.  The proposed requirements would remove the exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs employed by a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE-03).  The requirement would only apply to employees who are not certified.  Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be available under different provisions.  Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exception will be negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, coveralls) on rare occasions.

PPE-04.  Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE.  Current requirements allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release.  EPA is considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a substitution is permitted.  The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and CHPEs.  Some entities may not use closed systems now.  Others may have a system that is already in compliance with the proposed standards.  Of those that are not in compliance, some establishments may purchase a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE.  In addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is not currently required under federal regulations, but is required by California.

Given the variability in possible impacts, estimation of the cost of the potential requirement is difficult.  In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms and 50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system.  Instead, they utilize PPE and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year.  The other large and large-small WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal filters each year.  This probably overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator.  EPA also assumes that about 20 percent of systems will require maintenance each year, entailing costs of $86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008).  The probability of an action is then modified by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).  Table 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA's estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large-small WPS farms.  The baseline cost for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year.

Table 3.3-32.  Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed systems.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       5
0.22
$ 20.19
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       1
0.67
$ 12.11
Maintenance kit
                                    $86.50
                                       1
0.13
$ 11.66
costr,i,a[B]

$ 43.96
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two person CPHEs have one.  Thus the current expected cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and $35.27, respectively.  Note that California systems are all in compliance with the potential definition of a closed system.  However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping.

Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for large and large-small WPS farms to comply with the proposed standard.  In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA assumes another 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms already have a system that would meet the potential requirement.  As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct maintenance as needed.  We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008).  Once in compliance, their filter and maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems.  Finally, 25 percent of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a closed system.  Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides in a given year.

Table 3.3-33.  Per- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed systems, Year 1.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       5
0.22
$ 20.19
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       1
0.22
$ 4.04
Maintenance kit
                                    $86.50
                                       1
0.05
$ 3.89
New Closed System
                                    $480.00
                                       1
0.25
$ 121.23
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       1
0.22
$ 4.04
Maintenance kit
                                    $86.50
                                       1
0.05
$ 3.89
Respirator filters
                                  $17.97/pair
                                       5
0.22
$ 20.19
File Maintenance Record
                                    $ 28.21
                                     3 min
0.09
$ 0.04
Record and Folder
                                    $ 0.29
                                       1
0.09
$ 0.03
costPPE,a[P]

$ 177.52
Source:	EPA estimation.  Prices (Gempler's, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA assumptions.

Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials.  EPA assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those with closed systems) will have a maintenance event to report.  All establishments with closed systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in the file.  As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the first year for large and large-small WPS farms.  In subsequent years, these farms will not need to purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average across all the affected WPS farms.

A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple handler enterprises, respectively.  The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions about the use of closed systems on these establishments.  For example, we assume that all CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed systems.  Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems.  In all cases, one third are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one-third would obtain a new system, and one-third would rely on PPE.

EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $32.5 million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately.  Over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million.  Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about $4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 million.  This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00, and to CPHEs of $48.00.  Note that the average impact per establishment includes those establishments unaffected by the change in standards.

PPE-05.  Disposal of contaminated PPE.  The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated PPE.  The proposed revision would specify that contaminated PPE be rendered unwearable.  The change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact.

3.3.8	Decontamination Supplies

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of exposure to pesticides.  EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees to mitigate exposures if they occur.  Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA characterizes some potential cost impacts.  A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34.

Table 3.3-34.  Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1.
Potential Requirement
                                     NC[P]
                                     NC[B]
                                      NIC
                                Annualized NIC

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
01 Water requirements, workers
1,781
1,781
0
0
02 Decontamination requirements, early entry events  -  workers
33
11
22
3
03 Decontamination requirements - handlers
434
434
0
0
04 Showers for handler decontamination
22,682,537
0
22,682,537
2,581,636
05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers
2,547
2,547
0
0
06 Eyewash station
121,999
2,547
119,452
13,596
Source:  EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

SUPPLY-01.  Quantity of water available for workers.  A current WPS provision requires that "enough" water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired.  EPA, in the 1992 "How to Comply" manual, supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient.  This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of water be available for each worker for routine decontamination.  Given the policy manual, it is likely that all WPS farms are in compliance with the potential requirement such that the incremental cost will be zero.  Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field.

SUPPLY-02.  Quantity of water available for early entry events.  Similarly, for tasks in treated areas during an REI, the WPS requires "sufficient" water be available for decontamination and the "How to Comply" manual stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient.  The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons.  Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in the activity.  Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. (NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003.  Given these assumptions, the incremental cost of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually.  This amounts to less than $0.01 per WPS farm per year.

SUPPLY-03.  Quantity of water available for handler decontamination.  Currently, the WPS requires that "enough" water be available for handlers to use for routine and emergency washing, including emergency eye-flush.   EPA, in the 1992 "How to Comply" manual, supplemented the rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient.  This potential revision would codify the existing definition of `enough' water for decontamination.  The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy manual.  As noted in SUPPLY-01, water availability would not generally be a problem.

Supply-04.  Provide showers for handler decontamination.  This option would require all establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes.  The impact of this requirement would be substantial.  Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities would cost about $105,000 (Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007).  Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for construction.  Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000 per WPS farm.  This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance.  In practice, most WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all applications themselves or turn to CPHEs.  The cost for current CPHEs to install showers could be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand for pesticide applications.  In the short term, EPA estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs.  Some would likely transfer to more general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages.  Others would likely find employment with CPHEs, for which demand would increase.  Thus, the final number of jobs lost as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain.

There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement.  For use in an emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not including installation (Grainger, 2013).  Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be appropriate for mixing/loading sites on-farm.  If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially workers, with an opportunity to clean off any residues before returning home, an outdoor shower with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013).  Some farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the more substantial facilities described above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion.

SUPPLY-05 and 06.  Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing.  Current requirements specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working with pesticides requiring protective eyewear.  Potential requirements would require there to be a sustained flow of water.  SUPPLY-05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per minute.  There would be little or no impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes such as diluting concentrated pesticides.

An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separate eyewash station.  The average cost of a portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 2008; Gempler's, 2008).  Given the number of CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million.  Assuming that annual maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate.

3.3.9	Emergency Response

The time between an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide.  Current requirements require "prompt" action in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific pesticide to which the individual was exposed.  Terms such as "prompt" lack specificity, however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action.  Therefore, EPA is considering potential requirements that would more precisely define standards for emergency response.  None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as explained below.

EMERG-01 and 02.  Response for worker exposure.  Potential requirements would define expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes (EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02).  Estimation of a precise cost of this requirement is not possible as field conditions are highly variable.  However, as this merely clarifies existing requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large.  The ubiquitous nature of cell phones suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement.  The most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers will be identifying the pesticide to which an individual is exposed.  In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be the most recent application.  However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, especially if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different farm.

EMERG-03 and 04.  Response for handler exposure.  Similarly, potential requirements would define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes (EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04).  Neither potential time frame is likely to result in measurable impacts.  In particular, identification of the pesticide to which the individual is exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers.

This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option.  The following chapters discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section.  Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requirements for proposal.  Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal on employment and small businesses.  Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pesticide exposure, both from reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day-to-day exposure.

Chapter 4.  Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers.  Out of the potential requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing.

Table 4-1.  Proposed Requirements.
Identifier
Title
           INFORM:  Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification
TRAIN-02
Immediate Training of Workers, with 2-Day Exception
TRAIN-03
Annual Training of Workers
TRAIN-06
Expand Worker Training
TRAIN-08
Increase Worker Trainer Qualification Standards
TRAIN-10
Keep Worker Training Records  -  2 years
TRAIN-12
Annual Handler Training
TRAIN-14
Expand Handler Training
TRAIN-16
Keep Handler Training Records  -  2 years
TRAIN-20
Require Employees Receive Verification of Training
HAZCOM-01
Application Information Available on Request
HAZCOM-02
Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS
HAZCOM-05
Keep Application Information  -  2 years
NOTIFY-01
Post Warning Signs if REI Greater than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production
NOTIFY-03
Oral Notification if REI Less than 4 Hours (Greenhouse)
NOTIFY-06
Revise Warning Signs
NOTIFY-08
Define `Adjacent' Worker Housing as within 100 Feet
NOTIFY-10
Oral Information for Entry into Restricted Areas
NOTIFY-12
Keep Records of Early Entry  -  2 years
NOTIFY-14
Revise Basic Pesticide Safety Display
NOTIFY-15
Add Safety Display to Worker Decontamination Sites
NOTIFY-16
Add Safety Display to Handler Decontamination Sites
NOTIFY-18
Notification of Application by Commercial Applicators
                         PROTECT:  Age, Entry, and PPE
AGE-01
Minimum Age of 16 for Early Entry
AGE-03
Minimum Age of 16 for Handlers
ENTRY-01
Expand Restricted Area
ENTRY-02
Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area
ENTRY-03
Limit Early Entry Time during Agricultural Emergencies to 4 Hours
PPE-01
Require Respirator Fit Test
PPE-02
Eliminate Exemption from PPE for WPS Employees working under a CCA
PPE-03
Eliminate Exemption from PPE for Employees working under CCAs
PPE-04
Revise Closed-System Standards
PPE-05
Render Contaminated PPE Unusable
          MITIGATE:  Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Response
SUPPLY-01
Routine Worker Decontamination Requirements
SUPPLY-02
Decontamination Requirements for Early Entry Events
SUPPLY-03
Decontamination Requirements for Handlers
SUPPLY-05
Water Flow Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing
EMERG-01
Define "Prompt" as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency
EMERG-03
Define "Prompt" as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the proposed revisions to the WPS.  Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement.  The emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the agricultural workers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular.

In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory development process (e.g., farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers, and other federal agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA).  Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-benefit analysis.  Other relevant factors include, for example, equity considerations (e.g., potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experiences.  A discussion of all these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule.

      13.1 Training Options

The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and handlers.  Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections.  Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise.

4.1.1	TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02:  Immediate worker training

EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to their entry into a pesticide-treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two-day grace period (TRAIN-02).  Requiring employers to provide the complete training to workers before they enter a treated area would ensure that workers understand how to protect themselves when working in pesticide-treated fields.  This is an especially critical issue for many temporary workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than five days on a single farm.  EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category.  These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive complete training.  Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in pesticide safety.  EPA estimates that this proposal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers will receive full training before they enter previously treated areas.  These changes should decrease the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area.

EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different times.   The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace period), is estimated to cost $7.10 per year per WPS farm.  In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers themselves may bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the amount they pick rather than by the hour.

4.1.2	TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13:  Frequency of worker and handler training

EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN-03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years.  This means that employees would be retrained on an annual basis.  To be effective, training must be repeated at appropriate intervals.   Pesticide safety educators have noted that "repeating basic safety messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007)."  Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training.  Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients.  Thus, while both alternatives would be an improvement over the current five year cycle, annual training is likely to provide substantially greater benefits than biennial training.

Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about $8.10 per year.  For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17.00 per year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs.  Costs for biennial handler training is estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively.

While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more frequent training.  As noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide exposure and illness in workers and handlers.  Moreover, training reinforces many of the other WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs.

The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel.  This option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see Chapter 2.2.1).  EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms (those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15.40 per year under TRAIN-03 to $12.40 per year.  However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive training, possibly for several years.

4.1.3	TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training

Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule amendments and affects multiple areas of the proposed changes.  A major goal of this expansion is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS.  The new training reinforces EPA's strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide-specific information that could lead to complacency in some cases and excess concern in others.

EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additional topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed requirements for early entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard communication materials, especially the SDS.

The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 minutes.  The longer training sessions would cost an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year for worker training and an estimated $3.20 per WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for handler training.

EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of SDS as the primary means of hazard communication.  These alternatives (TRAIN-07 and 15) would be slightly more expensive since explaining the details of crop sheets would be more complex than explaining the SDS.  The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively.

Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to justify the costs of development, distribution, and training.  Crop sheets may confuse workers with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used.  Providing such information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages.

4.1.4	TRAIN-08 vs 09:  Increase worker trainer competency standards

EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS-trained handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving training to those qualified to train certified applicators or those who have completed a "Train-the-Trainers" program.  An alternative evaluated here is to limit training only to those who have completed a Train-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09).  As discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to train.  The unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especially language and literacy issues, implies that there are substantial benefits to having trainers that have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population.  These trainers, i.e., those completing the Train-the-Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety information, the knowledge of adult education principles, and the communication skills needed to reach low-literacy audiences.  Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding and retention of pesticide safety training by workers.  This improvement would increase the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their family members.  Trainers of certified applicators will have the technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the information to a farmworker audience.  The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about $2.80 per WPS farm.  However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the provision will be delayed for two years.

4.1.5	TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17:  Record keeping

EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler (TRAIN-16) employee training for two years.  As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met.   Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS farms about $4.10 per year for worker training and less than $1.00 for handler training.  For CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler training is about $3.00 per year.  Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years.   Information from regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify training through records retained by the employer, especially if training is to be conducted annually.  Therefore EPA concludes that, if training occurs more frequently than is currently required, the longer, five-year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the two-year period.

4.1.6	TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19:  Training verification

There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS.  The purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they change employers, thus reducing duplicative training.  In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems with the current voluntary program for training verification in which workers and handlers receive cards they can show to subsequent employers.  Primary among the problems is that cards may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate verification.  These problems reduce employers' ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the ability of employees to use them.  This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the voluntary program to justify the expenditure.  Eliminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated, in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would accrue to EPA.  Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification (TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program.

However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable.  The information will thus be more reliable.  The proposed record keeping requirements discussed in Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting documentation.  EPA also notes that a majority of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at harvest as these workers are typically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked.  Thus, the time these workers spend in training  -  especially repeated training  -  reduces their wages.

Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of being easy for workers to carry.  They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time required to fill them out individually.  In addition to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with sufficient information for their records, while verification card of the sort typically used would not.  If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain all the information, they are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training.

4.2 	Hazard Communication Options

The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as "central posting."  The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following information: location and description of treated areas, the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and the REI, specified in duration (e.g., hours or days).  Posting is required for 30 days following the expiration of the REI.

EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be exposed to in the workplace.  However, there are several problems with the central posting requirement that impede its intended purpose.   On large establishments, or those where growing areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where workers or handlers are working.   Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult to make changes to the information prior to beginning the application and to ensure that the information remains current.  Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to workers and handlers.

4.2.1	HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information

EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information, available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request (HAZCOM-01).  At the same time, this revision would eliminate the requirement for the application records to be posted at a central location.  In addition, the application information would add the start and end times of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI.  The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 percent of applications.

Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps that workers and handlers can take to protect themselves.  Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leading to increased potential for exposure.  In addition, workers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their workplace is at a different part of the establishment.  Thus, central posting is not necessarily an effective means to communicate with employees.

However, this detailed information would be important in the event a worker or handler is poisoned and needs medical attention, for example.  It is the healthcare provider who most needs to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment.  The proposed change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application information for workers and handlers

4.2.2	HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04:  Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication Materials

EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the product label in addition to the current application record (HAZCOM-02).  The cost of this requirement is estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3.  One alternative would be to add only the pesticide label to the current information (HAZCOM-03), which would cost about $4.10 per year per WPS farm.  These cost estimates are based on posting the information at a central location.  A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM-04), estimated to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm.  This cost estimates is based on the distribution of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area.

As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations and inappropriate concern in others.  A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through frequent training, is likely to be more effective.  Hazard information is particularly valuable in case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provide the bulk of this value.  While the pesticide label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for safe use and handling.  The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and on treatment.

4.2.3 	HAZCOM-05 vs 06:  Recordkeeping and Retention

As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of verifying the WPS farm's compliance with the regulations.  Keeping records for five years (HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. $7.60 per WPS farm),  However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more than two years provides little or no additional benefit.

4.2.4	HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets

EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop-specific hazard sheets along with the labels for all agricultural products.  This requirement would support the alternative approach to hazard communication under HAZCOM-04.  It would also be combined with the expansion of training under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know how to interpret and use the crop sheets.  As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not clear that this additional information provides substantial additional benefits.    While this additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse workers with complex pesticide application information that would be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages.  EPA estimates this requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for ten years.  This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be substantial as they would have to be location-specific.

4.3	Notification Options

In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirements, the WPS also requires that specific information be provided in certain situations.  This information is often necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk.

4.3.1	NOTIFY-01 vs 02:  Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and posted warnings.  NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an estimated cost of $11.1 million per year, and NOTIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7.9 million per year.  On a per-farm basis, estimated to cost are about $28.30 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $20.10 per year for NOTIFY-02.  A WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is approximately $1.40 per worker.

Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers (Calvert et al., 2008).  One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI.  Given the magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours.

4.3.2	NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing  -  Enclosed Space Production

The current rule requires posting of the warning sign for all applications in enclosed space production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries).  EPA proposes to relax this requirement and allow employers the options of oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four hours or less.  This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect.

Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently enter unposted treated areas.  Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without increasing workers' risk of exposure.

4.3.3	NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification

To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requiring that agricultural employers create and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 years (NOTIFY-05).  Given the frequency of pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required.  As explained in Chapter 3, these provisions would cost about $20.2 to $20.5 million per year, respectively.

The addition of the proposed recordkeeping component for oral notification could encourage employers to ensure workers receive accurate information, which in turn could lead to fewer workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure.  EPA has insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternatives.  Posting for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at lower cost.

4.3.4	NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

EPA is proposing minor modifications to the current WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase "Entry Restricted" in place of the blanket "Keep Out."  The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be about $0.25 per WPS farm per year.

EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol, but more critically considered requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field.  As a result, the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm.  As noted in Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits.

4.3.4	NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated area, or an area affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker housing.  EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area (NOTIFY-08).  This is a clarifying revision and EPA anticipates negligible impacts.  It will largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations.

EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY-09).  EPA estimates that this provision would cost about $660 per year per WPS farm.  Since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI.  Posting in cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits.

4.3.6	NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks

The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in effect except for cases of "limited contact," "no-contact," "short-term," "irrigation," or "agricultural emergency activities" as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112).  The WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker exits the field.  EPA is proposing that agricultural employers provide more detailed information to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI.  This additional notification includes the type of contact permitted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with which workers must be provided.  NOTIFY-10 would require that this information be provided orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annually or about $1.80 per WPS farm.  NOTIFY-11 would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year.

Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in workers (Calvert et al., 2008).  Providing workers with more information about how to protect themselves from pesticide exposure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area.  Given the differences in language and frequent low English literacy rates among farmworkers, written information may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information.

4.3.7	NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will provide substantial benefits.  EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12).  The estimated national cost for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average.  Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm per year, but the longer period appears to provide no significant benefits.  According to discussions with state agencies, a two-year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs.

4.3.8	NOTIFY-14:  Revise safety display