effects of pesticide exposure and improve the ability of the medical
personnel to provide appropriate treatment.
    EPA does not have data on the number of requests for information in
the event of an accidental pesticide exposure by exposed persons or
treating medical personnel. Medical personnel need relevant information
to treat people who may have been exposed to pesticides. Treatment
protocol varies by pesticide and type of exposure; for example, the
recommended treatment for one pesticide may be to induce vomiting
immediately, while for another pesticide this treatment could do more
harm to the exposed person. Many of the recommendations for medical
care listed in the ``Recognition and Management of Pesticide
Poisoning'' manual depend on the time between initial exposure and
medical treatment (Ref. 12). Some treatments are not effective unless
provided within a specific timeframe of exposure (generally 1 hour). In
addition, recommended treatments for different types of exposure vary
and sometimes conflict with each other; therefore, it is essential that
the medical personnel have as much information as possible about the
likely pesticide(s) to which the patient may have been exposed in order
to provide the proper treatment.
    Amending the existing regulation to require provision of
information relevant to the exposure circumstances and pesticide's
properties would ensure that medical personnel are properly informed at
the time of beginning treatment or soon afterward. With timely and
proper treatment, many acute pesticide exposures may be mitigated
before they cause more long-lasting effects.
    Providing workers transportation to a medical facility in the event
of a workplace injury is the responsibility of employers in almost all
industries. OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive
medical treatment, clarifying the requirement to mean within 3-4
minutes if the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not
life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). OSHA requires employers in all
industries to provide transportation for emergency medical assistance
if it is not possible to use public services, for example, an ambulance
(29 CFR 1926.50(e)). EPA recognizes the differences between agriculture
and other industries. WPS establishments can be very large compared to
the types of locations covered by OSHA standards, for example,
factories, office buildings, and similar self-contained areas. Whereas
the foreman or manager at a factory is likely to be on site or nearby
at the time of an employee's injury, an agricultural or commercial
pesticide handler employer could be significantly farther away. Based
on the physical differences between a WPS establishment and typical
industrial locations covered by OSHA, EPA believes it is reasonable to
allow agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe
to reach an exposed worker or handler to provide transportation.
    In developing this proposal, EPA was mindful of the demographics of
the worker and handler populations. Some do not have their own vehicle
and rely on an employer, co-worker, or labor contractor to provide
transportation to and from the agricultural establishment. Some may not
be able to secure transportation to a medical facility outside of
working hours. The injured person may be too compromised to safely
drive to the medical facility. Without a requirement for the employer
to provide transportation, some workers and handlers might be stranded
in the treated area or might wait longer than necessary or advisable to
seek medical attention.
    The regulatory text concerning emergency assistance appears in the
proposed rule at Sec.  170.9(f) for workers and handlers and at Sec.
170.13(k) for handlers employed by a commercial pesticide handling
establishment.
    E. Costs. When compared to current practices, the Agency estimates
the cost of complying with the proposed requirements to provide the
information and to transport exposed workers or handlers within thirty
minutes of learning of the exposure would be negligible. The Agency
believes that many agricultural employers and commercial handler
employers already meet this standard. Under other proposed changes,
agricultural employers and commercial handler employers would be
required to maintain copies of the SDS or pesticide label in an office
for the workers to review. [See Unit IX.] Agricultural employers and
commercial handler employers are also required to maintain copies of
the application records. Providing these documents, copies, or
information from them, would impose minimal additional burden on the
employer. Agricultural employers and commercial handler employers are
already required to provide transportation to a medical treatment
facility for workers or handlers who are exposed to pesticides.
Changing the timeframe for providing transportation from ``prompt'' to
within 30 minutes is

a technical clarification and EPA believes it would impose minimal
burden. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and
alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    F. Alternative Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency
considered two alternative options to the timeframe for providing
transportation. First, the Agency considered replacing ``prompt'' with
``immediate.'' Using ``immediate'' might convey the urgency of the
situation and encourage agricultural employers and commercial handler
employers to transport exposed workers or handlers as quickly as
possible. However, this change would not address the vagueness in the
regulation or impose a timeframe in which the agricultural employer or
commercial pesticide handler employer must make available the proposed
required information and transportation to a medical facility. Second,
the Agency considered imposing a timeframe of one hour for the
agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler employer to make
transportation available. Based on the guidance under OSHA for
providing medical treatment to an injured employee, the Agency believes
that an hour would be too long to allow a worker or handler to wait for
transportation to a medical treatment facility to be made available to
worker or handler.
    G. Request for Comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is 30 minutes a reasonable timeframe for an agricultural
employer or commercial handler employer to make transportation
available to a worker or handler who has been exposed to pesticides to
a medical treatment facility? If the timeframe is too long or short,
please explain why. What would be a reasonable alternative?
     Do medical personnel treating a worker or handler for
occupational pesticide exposure need more information than what is
proposed to evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patient? If so, what
additional information would be necessary?
     If time is of the essence in determining the proper course
of treatment, should EPA consider requiring the agricultural employer
to report the estimated time of the incident in addition to the
information proposed above?

XVI. Personal Protective Equipment

A. Chemical-Resistant PPE

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide
``chemical-resistant'' PPE in certain circumstances but does not
provide a practical method for evaluating whether the material meets
the standard. EPA proposes to clarify how to determine whether PPE is
``chemical-resistant.'' This clarification would ensure that compliance
with the WPS chemical-resistant garment standard can be objectively
determined and would provide appropriate protection to workers or
handlers.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under the WPS, ``chemical-resistant''
material means a ``material that allows no measurable movement of the
pesticide being used through the material during use'' (40 CFR
170.240(c)(1)).
    3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have informed the EPA that
they cannot enforce the current standard. It can be difficult to
determine, without significant and costly testing, whether a material
is permeable to a pesticide. Inspectors noted that they cannot verify
compliance at the time of a field inspection. Similarly, employers
attempting to comply with the requirement face difficulty in
determining whether a garment meets the criteria.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
redefine ``chemical-resistant'' to mean that the PPE must be identified
by the manufacturer as chemical resistant. EPA believes that PPE
manufacturers will only identify items as chemical resistant if they
provide a significant barrier to chemicals.
    Changing from the current standard to one that requires the
employer to provide PPE that the manufacturer calls ``chemical-
resistant'' would allow employers and enforcement personnel a clear
standard for determining compliance with the WPS.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning chemical-resistant PPE
appears in Sec.  170.207(b)(1) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs. The estimated cost of this clarification is considered to
be negligible. The EPA believes most employers currently purchase
garments labeled as chemical-resistant for their employees.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     Are there alternatives to this proposal for determining
chemical resistance of a garment that are both cost-effective and
protective? Please provide details and any data that may apply.

B. Closed Systems

    1. Overview. The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-
specified PPE when using a closed system for certain handling
activities. A closed system is an apparatus designed for mixing and
loading pesticides that enables transfer of a pesticide from its
original container into a new container, mix tank, or application
equipment, while limiting the handler's exposure to the pesticide. But
the existing WPS fails to provide specific criteria for an acceptable
closed system, thereby limiting the practical availability and utility
of the exception. EPA proposes to establish specific criteria for
closed systems based on California's existing standard that would
ensure protections for handlers, bystanders, and the environment during
mixing and loading. EPA expects that this change would increase the
number of establishments that use closed systems for pesticide mixing
and loading activities because employers would have a clear description
of the requirements on which to rely, thereby decreasing the potential
for exposure.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS provides only a
description of a closed system as one that ``. . . enclose[s] the
pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons.''
Use of a properly functioning closed system that meets this description
allows handlers to substitute the label-required PPE with alternative
PPE when the system is used and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's written operating instructions (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4)).
The existing description does not adequately describe the specific
characteristics of a closed system.
    3. Summary of the issues. State regulators have reported problems
with the ability to determine compliance with WPS requirements for
closed systems. The current description lacks specific criteria for the
characteristics necessary for a protective enclosed system, inhibiting
the ability of inspectors to ensure that the system is in compliance.
State regulators have asked EPA to establish practical, enforceable
criteria for closed systems that will enable them to better determine
which types of systems qualify for the exception.
    California is the only state with specific closed system standards.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation requires applicators
to use a closed system when handling products

with a signal word of ``Danger'' or ``Warning'' (Ref. 89). The closed
system standards are required for liquid pesticides and may be used,
but are not required, for other pesticide formulations. The definition
of a ``closed system'' references a ``Director's Memo,'' which outlines
the standards for closed systems (Ref. 90). The Director's Memo
establishes the following criteria:
    1. The liquid pesticide must be removed from its original shipping
container and transferred through connecting hoses, pipes, and/or
couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of any person
to the concentrate, use dilution, or rinse solution.
    2. All hoses, piping, tanks, and connections used in conjunction
with a closed system must be of a type appropriate for the pesticide
being used and the pressure and vacuum of the system.
    3. All sight gauges must be protected against breakage. Sight
gauges must be equipped with valves so the pipes to the sight gauge can
be shut off in case of breakage or leakage.
    4. The closed system must adequately measure the pesticide being
used. Measuring devices must be accurately calibrated to the smallest
unit in which the material is being weighed or measured. Pesticide
remaining in the transfer lines may affect the accuracy of measurement
and must be considered.
    5. The movement of a pesticide concentrate beyond a pump by
positive pressure must not exceed 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of
pressure.
    6. A probe must not be removed from a container except when:
    a. The container is emptied and the inside, as well as the probe,
have been rinsed in accordance with item 8.
    b. DPR has evaluated the probe and determined that, by the nature
of its construction or design, it eliminates significant risk of worker
exposure to the pesticide when it is withdrawn from a partial
container.
    c. The pesticide is used without dilution and the container has
been emptied.
    7. Shut-off devices must be installed on the exit end of all hoses
and at all disconnect points to prevent the pesticide from leaking when
the transfer is stopped and the hose is removed or disconnected.
    a. If the hose carried pesticide concentrate and has not been
rinsed in accordance with item 8, a dry break coupler that will
minimize pesticide loss to not more than two milliliters per disconnect
must be installed at the disconnect point.
    b. If the hose carried a pesticide use dilution or rinse solution,
a reversing action pump or a similar system that will empty the hose
may be used as an alternative to a shutoff device.
    8. When the pesticide is to be diluted for use, the closed system
must provide for adequate rinsing of containers that have held less
than 60 gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing must be done with a
medium, such as water, that contains no pesticide.
    a. The system must be capable of spray-rinsing the inner surfaces
of the container and the rinse solution must go into the pesticide mix
tank or applicator vehicle via the closed system. The system must be
capable of rinsing the probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring
devices, etc.
    b. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure must be used for rinsing.
    c. The rinsing must be continued until a minimum of 10 gallons or
one-half of the container volume, whichever is less, has been used.
    d. The rinse solution must be removed from the pesticide container
concurrently with introduction of the rinse medium.
    e. Pesticide containers must be protected against excessive
pressure during the container rinse operation. The maximum container
pressure must not exceed five psi.
    9. Each commercially produced closed system or component to be used
with a closed system must be sold with:
    a. Complete instructions consisting of a functional operating
manual and a decal(s) covering the basic operation. The decal(s) must
be placed in a prominent location on the system.
    b. Specific directions for cleaning and maintenance of the system
on a scheduled basis.
    c. Information on any restrictions or limitations relating to the
system, such as pesticides that are incompatible with materials used in
the construction of the system, types (or sizes) of containers or
closures that cannot be handled by the system, any limits on ability to
correct or over measurement of a pesticide, or special procedures or
limitations on the ability of the system to deal with partial
containers.
    Operating Requirements:
    10. The system must be cleaned and maintained according to the
manufacturer's instructions. If the system is not a commercially
produced system it must be maintained on a regular basis. A record of
cleaning and maintenance must be maintained.
    11. All labeling required personal protective equipment (PPE) must
be present at the work site. Protective eyewear must be worn while
using a closed system that operates under pressure. While using a
closed system, PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as provided
in Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6738.
    Information about closed systems which have been evaluated and
found to meet these criteria is available from DPR (Ref. 91).
    California's standard also allows for PPE to be modified or
substituted when using a closed system that meets the established
criteria.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to adopt the
California closed system standards as outlined in the Director's Memo,
except where there are specific references to California-specific
information. The proposed criteria are based on research by the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California has indicated
that it is considering changes to the Director's Memo criteria. EPA
will consider any changes made to California's standard and the
supporting rationale when developing a final standard for closed
systems in the WPS.
    In addition to establishing standards for the system, the proposal
establishes requirements for the use of the closed system. To be
eligible for the exceptions to the label-specified PPE requirements
when a handler uses a closed system, EPA proposes to require that the
handler employer ensure that the handler receives training on use of
the closed system, perform maintenance according to the manufacturer's
written instructions, and maintain records of all maintenance for 2
years.
    The proposed rule would retain the following current requirements:
(1) Label-mandated PPE must be immediately available for use in an
emergency; (2) handlers must use protective eyewear for closed systems
that operate under pressure; and (3) a respirator must be worn if
required by the label.
    EPA believes that the existing WPS standard for closed systems, if
applied strictly, may be difficult to meet and could limit the
exception from being used because it requires that no pesticide escape
during the transfer. As a result, some agricultural establishments may
be forgoing the WPS closed system exception, despite the availability
of closed systems that can be reasonably expected to meet the
performance criteria. Additionally, other establishments may be
employing systems that they believe qualify as closed, yet nevertheless
expose handlers to elevated risk because the criteria for closed
systems have not been adequately described. EPA is aware of

closed systems currently manufactured and available to agricultural and
handler employers that meet the California closed system criteria.
    EPA believes a properly designed and functioning closed system
provides benefits to the pesticide handler, bystanders, and the
environment. Studies show that PPE may be discarded if uncomfortable,
such as when temperatures are high, or may be worn when contaminated or
damaged, reducing its protective value. Additionally, PPE can only
protect the wearer, but pesticide exposure to bystanders and the
environment can be minimized through the use of a closed system.
Industrial hygiene principles detail the use of the ``hierarchy of
controls'' to manage chemical exposure. The hierarchy includes
controlling chemical exposures from the source as a preferred approach,
through substitution of a safer chemical or process, mechanizing the
process, or isolating/enclosing the process. The use of closed systems
fits this latter category by enclosing the chemical and substantially
reducing the potential for exposure at the source, thereby reducing the
potential for subsequent exposure to handlers, other people, and the
environment.
    Closed systems are considered an important protection against
hazards in other industries. For example, health care workers working
with hazardous drugs can experience exposures to those drugs that can
result in illness. In 2004, CDC-NIOSH published an alert to healthcare
workers, identifying the risks of exposure to these drugs (Ref. 92).
The alert recommended a closed system drug transfer device (CSTD) to
reduce exposure. CDC-NIOSH defines a CSTD as a system that
``mechanically prohibits the transfer of environmental contaminants
into the system and the escape of hazardous drug or vapor
concentrations outside the system,'' thereby limiting the occupational
exposure to a healthcare provider (Ref. 92).
    The proposed rule would replace the current performance standard
with a set of specific criteria that a closed system would be required
to meet. Because it will be easier to demonstrate compliance with these
criteria, EPA expects this proposed revision to increase the number of
establishments that use sufficiently protective closed systems for
pesticide handling tasks involving mixing and loading, thereby reducing
the potential for handlers and others to be exposed to pesticides
during such activities.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning closed systems appears in
Sec.  170.307(d) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposed
standards for closed systems would be $6.9 million annually, or about
$25 per agricultural establishment per year and about $48 per
commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. The cost estimate
is based on conservative estimates of the number of establishments that
currently use closed systems. EPA believes that some establishments
that currently use closed systems that do not meet the proposed
standards would upgrade and some would elect not to use a closed
system, reverting to the label-required PPE. The Agency is not aware of
sources of information that provide estimates of the number of
establishments that use these systems for pesticide handling.
Therefore, EPA has made assumptions about their numbers. The Agency
believes these assumptions are conservative and that the actual cost of
implementing this clarification of the requirements would be
significantly lower.
    The proposed requirement would not require employers to use closed
systems if they have not already chosen to use closed systems in their
operation, but will allow more flexibility for employers to use a
broader range of closed systems. EPA believes that more closed systems
will now be able to meet the criteria for the exception because it is
proposing to replace language that implies a complete prohibition of
exposure with more practical criteria that will enable more closed
systems to meet the requirements for the exception. For a complete
discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency
considered eliminating the exception for closed systems based on
reports of improper uses of the closed system exception. However, EPA
expects that properly defined and employed closed systems afford
superior protection for handlers, other individuals, and the
environment. In order to support the use of properly designed and
operated closed system, EPA instead proposes to clarify the WPS
criteria for closed systems.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are the proposed standards for closed systems reasonable
and achievable?
     Are the proposed standards for closed systems too
specific? If so, please describe what aspects are too specific, why,
and how to achieve sufficient protection while reducing the
specificity.
     Do data exist on the number of establishments that use
closed systems, the number that do not use closed systems because the
current standard is not clear, and/or the number of establishments that
use closed systems that meet the California criteria?
     Would people who currently use closed systems that do not
meet the proposed standard upgrade their closed system or opt to use
the label-required PPE? What information would impact this decision?
     What would be the cost to convert an existing system that
does not meet the proposed standard to one that does?
     Should EPA consider eliminating any of the criteria listed
in the proposal? If so, which criteria and why?
     What would be the benefits and draw backs of the
requirement for the closed system to triple rinse the container? Is the
technology available to provide this element at a reasonable cost?
     Would it be possible for agricultural and handler
employers, handlers, and inspectors to measure the closed system's PSI
while the system is in use? If it would not be possible, should EPA
consider eliminating this element?

C. Contaminated PPE

    1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers either to clean or
properly dispose of contaminated PPE. EPA proposes to require that
contaminated PPE be rendered unusable before disposal.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers either to
clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly (40 CFR
170.240(f)). PPE can become contaminated with pesticides from routine
use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose the wearer to those pesticide
residues.
    3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have raised concerns that
contaminated PPE may be reused if not destroyed.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require
employers to render unusable before properly disposing of PPE that
cannot be decontaminated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary
exposure resulting from the wearing of contaminated garments. For
example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from overuse or soaked in
pesticide from a spill are

accidentally placed in a laundry bin instead of the trash bin, a person
in need of protective clothing may find the discarded garment and
attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment apart would make it less likely
that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the pesticide
residues.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning rendering PPE unusable
before disposal appears in Sec.  170.207(d)(2) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. The cost of this proposal is expected to be
negligible, because employers are required to dispose of contaminated
PPE under the existing requirement. There is expected to be minimal
additional burden on the employer to render the PPE unusable. For a
complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see
the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     Are there better ways to mitigate the risks associated
with reuse of discarded PPE? Please provide rationale and data, as
applicable, with your response.

D. Eyewear Protection for Open Cockpits

    1. Overview. The existing WPS allows pilots applying pesticides
from an open cockpit aircraft to substitute a visor for label-required
eye protection. The Agency proposes to replace the option to use visors
in open cockpit aerial applications with the option of using a helmet
with the face shield lowered as a substitute for the eye protection
required on the label. EPA expects this proposal would balance the
needs for adequate eye protection and suitable visibility among
handlers that apply pesticides aerially from open cockpit aircraft.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. 40 CFR 170.240(d)(6)(ii) requires that
pilots applying pesticides from an open cockpit wear PPE in accordance
with the label but allows pilots to substitute a visor for label-
required eye protection. Depending on the particular pesticide product,
the label-required eye protection might be goggles; a face shield;
safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection; or a full-face
respirator.
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency intended the
existing open cockpit exception to relax certain PPE requirements, but
EPA nevertheless intended to convey that some covering extending over
the eyes was necessary. While a face shield might be characterized as a
visor, the term can also reasonably be interpreted as the brim of a cap
that provides the eyes shade and protection from rain, but little other
protection. Such a visor does not provide meaningful protection against
pesticide sprays or spills. This protection is especially important for
pilots applying in an open cockpit because they may be exposed to drift
while making aerial applications. In order to assure aerial applicators
have adequate eye protection, the Agency proposes to replace the option
to use visors in open cockpit aerial applications with the option to
use a helmet with the face shield lowered.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning eyewear protection for open
cockpits appears in Sec.  170.307(f)(2) of the proposed rule.
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA expects this proposal to have negligible
costs because the pesticide label already mandates that employers
provide specific PPE. This proposal merely changes the option for what
PPE can be substituted for the label-mandated PPE. For a complete
discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     Is the estimate of the cost reasonable? Please provide
rationale and data to support your information.

E. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training, and Medical Evaluation

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires handler employers to ensure
that handlers' respirators fit correctly. EPA proposes to clarify this
requirement to expressly include medical evaluation, fit testing, and
training for respirator users. In addition, EPA proposed to require
that handler employers retain records of compliance with these
requirements. EPA expects that these changes will result in fewer
incidents of exposure and improvements to the health of respirator-
wearing handlers covered by the WPS.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires handler employers to
ensure that each handler's respirator fits correctly (40 CFR
170.240(c)(9)). However, part 170 does not provide specific details on
how to ensure that a respirator fits properly, conducting medical
evaluation, periodically refitting the handler for respirator use,
training requirements for proper use of respirators, or retaining fit
test records.
    3. Summary of the issues. The CHPAC, a Federal Advisory Committee,
and Farmworker Justice noted that OSHA's standards for respirator fit
testing, training, and medical monitoring are absent from part 170 and
recommended incorporating the OSHA requirements (Ref. 74) (Ref. 35, p.
2). They expressed concern that the level of protection for handlers
using respirators under the WPS requirements is inadequate.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require
handler employers to comply with the respirator fit testing, training,
and medical evaluation requirements set by OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.134
whenever a respirator other than a dust or mist filtering mask is
required by the labeling. The OSHA standard includes a specific
standard for fitting a user for respirator use, training on recognizing
when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to take to
properly use and maintain respirators. OSHA also requires respirator
users to be medically evaluated to ensure the respirator use does not
cause undue stress on their bodies. The adoption of the OSHA standard
into part 170 would ensure that handlers understand how to wear
respirators properly, are medically fit to use respirators, and receive
training on respirator use. It would also ensure that if technology
advances lead OSHA to amend its standard, the change would
automatically apply to pesticide uses subject to the WPS as well. EPA
believes this proposal would better protect handlers from respiratory
hazards. This requirement would be limited to products covered by the
WPS.
    In order for respirators to provide the intended protection, they
must be fitted to the specific user. Fit testing ensures that the
respirator seals completely on the face. Respirator wearers must be
able to recognize when the seal is broken so that they may correct the
fit or remove themselves from the exposure area.
    The respirator wearer's respiratory system can be stressed because
intake of breath is more difficult while wearing a respirator. For
example, persons with medical limitations may be at risk of cardiac
problems from the stress of the additional effort to inhale. Other
potential negative impacts for respirator wearers include stress on the
pulmonary system and even claustrophobia (Ref. 93). These potential
negative health impacts can be avoided by doing a fit test of the
respirator and if necessary, a medical evaluation.
    In other industries where respirators are required for work around
hazardous chemicals, OSHA requirements ensure that users wear them
appropriately. Because pesticide use in agriculture is

outside of OSHA's scope [see Unit IV.D.], handlers of pesticides who
use respirators are not protected to the same degree as workers in
other industries although they face similar risks. Handlers can be
exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing,
loading, and application.
    EPA believes incorporation of the OSHA standard will provide
employers and handlers with more specific information on what it means
to ensure that a respirator fits correctly and ensure that respirators
are maintained properly to protect handlers.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning respirator use requirements
appears in Sec.  170.207(b)(9) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to employers of
complying with the clarification of the WPS respirator requirements to
reference the OSHA standard would be $10.6 million annually, or about
$54 for agricultural establishments per year and $3 for commercial
pesticide handling establishments per year. The cost to commercial
pesticide handling establishments only reflects the cost of
recordkeeping because EPA assumes that they already comply with OSHA's
respirator requirements because they engage in activities outside of
the scope of the WPS that are covered by OSHA. EPA believes the cost
estimates for agricultural establishments are very conservative because
EPA believes that many establishment owners already are required to
comply with OSHA requirements related to respirator use for other
reasons. This proposal clarifies the existing requirement, which
requires employers to ensure that handlers' PPE fits properly and to
perform proper maintenance.
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal.
However, EPA believes ensuring that handlers can safely use respirators
and those respirators fit properly would increase effectiveness of the
protections offered by respirators. This would ultimately lead to a
reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency
considered amending 40 CFR part 156, which addresses labeling
requirements, to require respirator fit testing, training, and medical
evaluation requirements in accordance with OSHA standard 29 CFR
1910.134 on all labeling for pesticide products that require
respirators other than filtering face pieces or dust masks. This
proposal, however, would go beyond the scope of the WPS rule
amendments, which focuses on agricultural pesticide use. Implementing
this option would require changes to all pesticide labeling with
respirator requirements and would likely take over three years to
implement, based on necessary rulemaking for all labeling and the
process for realizing changes on labeling of products in the field. The
relabeling process would significantly delay protections to handlers.
EPA may consider whether to take this action independently from the
changes proposed in this proposed rule.
    The Agency also considered the option of only establishing these
requirements on individual WPS product labeling, on a product-by-
product basis. Some proportion of the products covered by the WPS may
already have these requirements on their labeling. For those products
that lack the requirements, EPA recognized that it may take
significantly longer for these protections to be added to labeling, and
so opted to propose the revisions in part 170, where adherence to the
OSHA standard would have the legal effect of labeling instructions
without the need for re-labeling.

XVII. Monitoring Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting
Pesticides

    1. Decision Not to Propose. EPA considered proposing cholinesterase
(ChE) monitoring of handlers to support mitigation of handlers'
exposure to ChE-inhibiting pesticides. Currently, part 170 has no
requirement to monitor ChE levels in workers or handlers. EPA believes
that its product-specific risk assessment and registration process
described in Unit III establishes adequate protections for handlers
from undue risk of pesticide exposure. Additionally, other proposed
changes proactively address some of the risks to handler health that
have been identified by state-based ChE monitoring programs. The Agency
does not believe that the anticipated benefits of a ChE monitoring
program would justify the costs to handlers and employers and would be
reactive, catching incidents after they occur rather than working to
stop them from happening. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to add
a requirement for monitoring ChE inhibition in handlers at this time.
    2. Background. ChE refers to a family of enzymes that are critical
to proper nerve function in insects and humans. ChE permits the
transmission of signals across the space between the nerves called the
synapse. ChE-inhibiting pesticides block the transmission of these
signals, resulting in adverse symptoms. Acute poisoning symptoms
include nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, fatigue, excessive
salivation, and, in extreme cases, death. Except in severe cases, the
treatment for persons who have been exposed to ChE-inhibiting
pesticides usually involves removal from the work activities that
result in the exposure.
    Organophosphate (OP) and N-methyl carbamate (carbamate) pesticides,
which are widely used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE
levels in humans. The OPs and carbamate pesticides that present the
highest acute toxicity are in EPA's Toxicity Categories I and II,
indicated by the signal words ``DANGER'' and ``WARNING'', respectively,
on the product's label. Tests for ChE depression exist only for these
types of pesticides; therefore, the development and implementation of a
monitoring system would only provide information related to the use of
a small subset of products, not a general workplace hazard monitoring
program.
    An individual's ChE level can be determined with a blood test.
There is no universal normal range for ChE levels because baseline
levels vary widely between individuals; therefore, it is important that
an individual's initial baseline level be established before exposure
to ChE-inhibiting pesticides. Comparison of this baseline level to the
ChE level from the handler post-exposure can determine the level of
inhibition.
    Stakeholders have recommended ChE monitoring for handlers. In a
2006 letter to the Administrator, Farmworker Justice recommended
medical monitoring of pesticide handlers who mix, load or apply
Toxicity Category I or II OPs or carbamates for 30 hours or more in a
30-day period (Ref. 35).
    Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted
rules to require ChE monitoring. EPA reviewed California and Washington
State's ChE monitoring rules when considering ChE monitoring on a
national level.
    Established in 1974, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation program requires monitoring for handlers of OPs and
carbamate products with the signal word ``DANGER'' or ``WARNING'' on
their labels (Ref. 94 p. Section 6728). For handlers who work with the
types of pesticides listed above for more than 6 days in a 30-day
period, California's regulations require that employers have the
handlers tested to establish baseline ChE levels and to monitor any
change after handling activities. Employers must retain records of
handler activities related to these pesticides as well. To avoid the
expense of sending a handler for blood testing, California believes
that many employers limit handlers' exposures to these pesticides to
less than six days in a 30-day period.

    Washington State's Department of Labor and Industries established a
voluntary ChE monitoring system for handlers in 2004. Employers must
offer the option of monitoring to the handlers, who may decline after
they have received training on the hazards posed by ChE inhibition and
a consultation with a health care practitioner. In addition, for
handlers who use Toxicity Category I or II OP or carbamate pesticides,
employers must:
     Record the number of hours employees spend handling these
pesticides.
     Implement a medical monitoring program for handlers who
could meet or exceed the handling threshold of 30 or more hours in any
consecutive 30-day period.
     Identify a medical provider to provide medical monitoring
services.
     Make baseline and periodic ChE testing available to
employees who could meet or exceed the handling threshold.
     Investigate work practices when a handler's red blood cell
(RBC) or serum ChE level drops more than 20 percent below the
employee's personal baseline.
     Remove employees from handling and other exposures to
organophosphate and N-methyl-carbamate pesticides when recommended by
the health care provider.
     Provide training on ChE monitoring to covered employees.
     Report employee handling hours to the medical provider
with each periodic test.
     Maintain medical monitoring and other records for seven
years (Ref. 95).
    For those handlers who opt for monitoring, the rule also requires
that handlers with red blood cell ChE depressions of greater than 30%
or serum depressions greater than 40% from their personal baseline be
removed from handling the listed pesticides until the handler's ChE
levels have returned to within 20% of his or her personal baseline and
that the employer conduct a work practice investigation.
    Washington State provides reimbursement to agricultural employers
for testing services and related administrative program costs. In 2009,
Washington State reimbursed 61 employers with $129,000 of costs (Ref.
96 p. 3). The reimbursement costs included baseline testing for 2,060
handlers and at least one additional test for 249 of the handlers who
had a baseline test (Ref. 96, p. 3).
    Washington State's Department of Labor and Industries ChE
monitoring Cost Benefit Determination and Small Business Impact
Statement identified the following benefits of ChE monitoring:
     Prevention of illness after over-exposure.
     Increased hazard awareness and improve workplace safety
related to pesticide use.
     Improved pesticide illness diagnosis and reporting.
     Greater certainty about frequency of pesticide over-
exposure.
     Decreased risk of unintended exposures to handlers'
families.
    3. Details of decision not to propose. After reviewing the
experiences of Washington State and California, as well as the
estimated costs of a national ChE monitoring program, the Agency has
decided not to propose establishing a ChE monitoring program for
handlers. EPA believes that the existing risk assessments and label-
based risk mitigation measures, in combination with the proposed
changes to expand handler training and to adopt OSHA respirator
standards, would be sufficient to prevent unreasonable adverse effects
to handlers working with OPs and carbamates.
    The Agency believes that Washington State's efforts have identified
the primary reasons for ChE inhibition among pesticide handlers. In
Washington State, the Department of Labor and Industries conducts
follow up investigations when monitoring indicates ChE inhibition is
greater than 20%. Review of pesticide worker protection programs
highlighted potential exposure scenarios and violations of the WPS
requirements including areas such as decontamination, PPE, and
respiratory protection (Ref. 97). The findings from the follow-up
suggest that in many cases ChE depression was caused by handlers not
following basic safety and hygiene procedures, e.g., not wearing the
label-required PPE and failing to wash before meals or bathroom breaks
(Ref. 97, pp. 10-11). Additionally, several handlers, who did wear
respirators as required by labeling, had beards, which compromised the
seal between the face and the respirator and reduced the protection
intended to be afforded by the equipment. Using this information,
Washington State developed training for handlers specifically on
decontamination and proper use of PPE.
    This proposed rule would address Washington State's findings by
requiring expanded handler training that covers reducing take-home
exposure, proper use and decontamination of PPE, and more frequent
handler training. [See Unit VII.E.] The Agency is also proposing
requirements for fit testing and training on proper respirator use for
handlers. [See Unit XVI.E.]
    As a result of the reregistration process for the OPs and
carbamates, revised labeling with increased protections is replacing
the older labeling in the field. EPA expects that many of the new
mitigation measures will result in lowered handler exposure. Key
improvements include requirements for closed system mixing and loading,
additional PPE, and reductions to rates of application and number of
annual applications permitted. Moreover, the uses of some highly
acutely toxic OPs are being phased out (Ref. 98). EPA recognizes that
some products with the most current label language have not yet reached
field users. For example, in the first years (2004 and 2005) of the
Washington State program, many applicators were not wearing respirators
when applying the OP pesticide Lorsban via air blast (Ref. 99) (Ref.
100). Inspectors learned that applicators were still using old product
and the corresponding labeling, which did not require respirator use
for handlers. This use resulted in higher exposure to the pesticide
handlers as a result. EPA expects that as product labeling with
additional risk mitigation measures reaches the field handlers
complying with the new requirements would have a lower potential for
exposure.
    EPA believes that product-specific risk mitigation measures
combined with increased handler protections outlined in this proposal
would appropriately address the elevated potential for ChE inhibition
in handlers. Moreover, the training and PPE elements of the proposed
rule are expected to have the combined effect of providing important
protective benefits to all pesticide handlers through increased
knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately
leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures. EPA favors this approach
over ChE monitoring because it prevents handler exposure rather than
addressing it after it occurs. EPA does not believe that the cost and
burden of implementing a national ChE monitoring program, which would
only identify a problem after the exposure has occurred, would be
justified by the limited benefits achieved by removing a handler from
the treated area once pesticide exposure has inhibited ChE levels.
    4. Costs and benefits. In 2003, Washington State developed a
Benefit-Cost Determination document to estimate the costs of
implementing their ChE monitoring program. The central estimated
compliance cost in year one was $848,490, and $1,272,487 in year

two (Ref. 101 p. 23). The costs for which employers can be reimbursed
under Washington's program include medical (consultations, follow-up
visits and procedures, and blood draws), recordkeeping to record
handling hours for monitored handlers, wages for time spent in training
for ChE monitoring, and mileage for travel costs associated with
evaluations and training. The expenses for which employers are
reimbursed by Washington State provide insight as to the costs and
activities of the employers and handlers participating in the ChE
program, but do not estimate the cost of a national ChE monitoring
program.
    In the proposal's ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard,'' the incremental cost of a monitoring
program, based primarily on California's and Washington's programs, is
estimated to be $15.2 million annually, or about $53 per agricultural
establishment per year and $120 per commercial pesticide handling
establishment per year. The requirements of a national ChE monitoring
program have not been developed sufficiently to provide a precise cost
analysis, but it would likely include program components such as
training, recordkeeping, clinical testing, and field investigations.
The estimated costs do not include the states' costs to build
infrastructure to support ChE monitoring or to cover continued
laboratory costs such as equipment maintenance and administrative
support.
    For more discussion of the costs of the proposal, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive
and are expected to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase
monitoring would only identify a problem after the exposure has
occurred. As a result, EPA concludes that the cost of implementing a
national cholinesterase monitoring program is not justified by its
limited benefits for a subpopulation of the nation's pesticide
handlers. The training and PPE elements of the proposed rule, however,
are expected to have the combined effect of providing important
protective benefits to all pesticide handlers through increased
knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately
leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures.
    5. Alternative options considered. EPA considered restricting the
number of hours handlers may work with OPs and carbamates in a given
timeframe (for example, no more than 30 hours of handling these
pesticides over a 30-day period). However, EPA is not aware of data
that would provide a basis for establishing this type of proposal.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically seeks feedback on its
decision not to propose a requirement for mandatory ChE monitoring,
including comment on the following questions:
     Do you believe the costs and burdens of a national ChE
monitoring program would be justified by the protections to handler
health? If so, please provide justification.
     Do you agree that it is more protective to prevent handler
exposure than to address it after it occurs? If so, why? If not, do you
have an alternative proposal to address handler exposure?
     Does other information exist on the benefits or challenges
of ChE monitoring that the Agency has not presented in this proposal?
If so, please provide.

XVIII. Exemptions and Exceptions

A. Immediate Family

    1. Decision not to propose. EPA considered eliminating the existing
exemption for workers and handlers under age 16 employed (receiving a
wage or salary) by immediate family members; however, the available
information may not be sufficient to support this option. Accordingly,
EPA is not proposing to amend the immediate family exemption to impose
any age requirements on establishments that qualify for the immediate
family exemption to the WPS. Although the WPS exempts owners and their
immediate family members from many provisions of the rule, EPA provides
the exemption based upon assurances that owners voluntarily provide to
immediate family members essentially the same protections required for
workers and handlers covered by the WPS. [Note: EPA is proposing to
expand the definition of ``immediate family'' to better reflect the
range of familial relationships that could occur. See Unit XIX.A., for
a discussion of the revised definition.]
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS exempts the owners of
agricultural establishments from providing certain WPS protections to
themselves and their immediate family members (40 CFR 170.104(a) and
170.204(a)). Specifically, the agricultural establishment owner is
exempt from complying with the following requirements for immediate
family members performing tasks as workers: Sections of the early-entry
restrictions; providing pesticide safety training or other safety
information; cleaning, storing, and maintaining PPE; maintaining
decontamination sites and supplies; providing notice of and specific
information about applications; and providing emergency assistance.
Similarly for immediate family members performing handler tasks, the
agricultural establishment owner is exempt from the following
requirements: Providing pesticide safety training and other safety
information such as restrictions during applications, knowledge of
labeling and site-specific information, and safe operation of
equipment; ensuring proper use, cleaning, and maintenance of PPE and
avoiding heat-related illness while using PPE; maintaining
decontamination sites and supplies; and providing emergency assistance.
The agricultural establishment owner must comply with all other
sections of the WPS. The immediate family includes only the spouse,
parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law,
children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law,
grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and
sisters-in-law of the owner of the agricultural establishment.
    In addition, the definitions of workers and handlers require that
they are employed for compensation in order to receive protection under
the WPS. Therefore, any person performing worker or handler tasks who
does not receive a wage or salary is not covered by any aspect of the
WPS.
    3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholder feedback, reports from the
GAO, the CHPAC and recent research have indicated an increased
awareness of the need to protect all children from adverse health
effects of pesticide exposure (Ref. 20) (Ref. 74) (Ref. 102) (Ref.
103). [See Unit V.C. and V.E.] During the National Assessment, EPA did
not seek specific stakeholder feedback on the existing immediate family
exemption and whether it should be amended.
    Input from the agricultural community indicates that emergency
assistance and other protections are among the reasonable steps an
owner of an agricultural establishment would take to protect family
members.
    4. Options considered and not proposed. The Agency considered
narrowing the immediate family exemption in two ways: (1) Limiting it
only to immediate family members of an owner of an agricultural
establishment who are at least 16 years old, and (2) modifying the
scope of the requirements that are exempted by eliminating from the
list emergency assistance for workers and handlers and handler
monitoring during fumigant application.

    Limiting the exemption to employed family members who are at least
16 years old would not prohibit agricultural establishment owners from
allowing their immediate family members under 16 years old to perform
WPS tasks. The proposed definition of ``employ'' specifies salary or
wages; other forms of compensation are not included in the definition.
Therefore, immediate family members who are compensated in other ways
besides salary or wages, but not ``employed'' by the WPS definition,
would continue to be exempted from certain specified provisions of the
WPS. As under the current rule, any person, including immediate family
members under 16 years old, who does not receive a wage or salary would
not be covered by any provisions of the WPS. See tables 1 and 2.

   Table 1--Considered Changes to the WPS Immediate Family Exemption--
Minimum Age, Emergency Assistance and Handler Monitoring During Fumigant
                              Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Then under the considered
  If the immediate family members are:        changes, the employer:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Under 16 years old AND........   Would have to comply
 Employed on the agricultural     with all relevant provisions
 establishment to perform WPS tasks       of the WPS (no immediate
 (receiving a wage or salary).            family exemption) for those
                                          immediate family members
                                          Would no longer have
                                          an exemption from providing
                                          emergency assistance to
                                          workers and handlers and
                                          monitoring handlers during
                                          fumigant applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA acknowledges requests from a range of stakeholders to ensure
protection of all children working with or around pesticides. Recent
findings suggest that working with or around pesticides may increase
potential risks of harm to children's developing systems and that
children's maturity and decision-making skills are not fully developed.
EPA believes that owners of agricultural establishments generally
protect family members independent of government regulation. EPA
believes that owners of agricultural establishments who employ only
members of their immediate families have access to a variety of sources
of information, outside the scope of the WPS, on how to provide
adequate protections from pesticide exposure to their family members.
Programs such as 4-H and Future Farmers of America provide information
to youth. The USDA's Cooperative Extension System, based out of land
grant universities, operates agricultural outreach programs in every
state. The Cooperative Extension System offers formal outreach, such as
county or state farm safety days, and informal outreach and advice to
individual farmers. The American Farm Bureau Federation and affiliated
state farm bureau operations also provide outreach on topics including
pesticide safety to farmers and their families. Finally, some farm
owners may be certified as pesticide applicators. Certified pesticide
applicators must pass an exam or attend a training program at the state
level to demonstrate they are competent to use and manage pesticides
safely. In addition, certified applicators are required to complete
continuing education, which includes information and reminders about
using pesticides safely and protecting others from pesticide exposure.
It is not clear from the available information that the burdens
associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce
commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed changing
the existing exemption from the requirement to provide certain WPS
protections to immediate family members, EPA is requesting comment on
this issue.
    EPA also considered eliminating the current exemption at Sec.
170.204(a)(i) in the case of immediate family members who are handling
highly toxic pesticides or working in enclosed fumigated areas. EPA
believes that owners of agricultural establishments generally protect
family members independent of government regulation. It is not clear
from the available information that the burdens associated with
narrowing the existing exemption would produce commensurate risk
reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating the current
exemption in the case of immediate family members who are handling
highly toxic pesticides or working in enclosed fumigated areas, EPA is
requesting comment on this issue.
    Lastly, EPA considered eliminating the exemption for establishment
owners to provide emergency assistance for immediate family members who
are workers or handlers. In the event of a pesticide poisoning, certain
symptoms, such as respiratory distress, need to be addressed promptly
to avoid more serious problems, such as heart failure or an inability
to breathe. Again, the Agency recognizes that establishment owners
working with immediate family members have a vested interest in their
family members' well being. EPA believes that additional regulation is
not necessary to ensure that immediate family members who are workers
or handlers receive assistance in the event of a pesticide-related
emergency. It is not clear from the available information that the
burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce
commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating
the current exemption to providing emergency assistance to workers and
handlers, EPA is requesting comment on this issue.
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
immediate family exemptions in the WPS.
     Would this requirement have a different impact on small
farms than on larger establishments? If so, please explain the likely
impact.
     Does exempting agricultural establishment owners from the
requirements to provide certain protections to immediate family members
present unreasonable risks to family members who are under 16 years
old?
     What would be the impact of limiting the immediate family
exemption to family members who are at least 16 years old and who are
employed by the owner?
     How many agricultural establishments would be affected if
EPA decided to limit the exemption to immediate family members at least
16 years old?

B. Crop Advisors and Employees

    1. Overview. The existing WPS allows exemptions from some
requirements for crop advisors and their employees. The Agency proposes
to eliminate exemptions from protections for employees directly
supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors. The Agency also
proposes to eliminate the

exemption from the worker decontamination and emergency assistance
provisions for certified or licensed crop advisors employed as workers
on agricultural establishments.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS allows crop advisor tasks to
be conducted during pesticide application and during subsequent REIs.
    As outlined in 40 CFR 170.5, crop advisor tasks include assessing
pest numbers or damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or
requirements of agricultural plants, but not performing hand labor
tasks. When performing crop advising tasks after the REI has expired or
performing hand labor tasks, and employed by the agricultural
establishment, a crop advisor is considered a worker under the WPS. A
person employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment
performing crop advising tasks after expiration of an REI is not
subject to any provisions of the rule.
    The WPS exempts the employer from complying with some handler
requirements when the employee performs crop advising tasks during an
REI and that is a certified or licensed crop advisor or directly
supervised by a certified or licensed crop advisor. To qualify for this
exemption, the crop advisor certification or licensing program must
include, at a minimum, all information listed under handler training,
40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). Under the current WPS, the certified crop advisor
must make specific determinations regarding the appropriate PPE,
decontamination and safe method of conduct for those working under his
or her direct supervision. This information, as well as information
regarding the product, method and time of application, REI, tasks, and
contact information, must be conveyed by the certified crop advisor to
each person under his supervision. Currently, the WPS exempts employers
from complying with worker requirements such as providing
decontamination supplies and emergency assistance for certified or
licensed crop advisors and persons they directly supervise.
    3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies and their
representatives have expressed concerns with the current crop advisor
exemptions, noting that those working under the supervision of the crop
advisors may be unaware of the risks posed by pesticides.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to limit
this exemption to crop advisors only, eliminating from the exemption
employees directly supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors.
The Agency believes employees who are not certified or licensed as crop
advisors but who are performing crop advising tasks may be unable to
make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk because they are not
required to receive information about the risks of working around
pesticide-treated areas and how to protect themselves from exposure.
    If a person performs crop advising activities under the supervision
of a certified crop advisor, he or she may not understand the factors
influencing the risks well enough to take appropriate protective
measures or to alert the supervising crop advisor to observations that
could alter the initial decisions about the protective measures to be
taken.
    The Agency also proposes to eliminate the exemption for certified
or licensed crop advisors employed as workers on agricultural
establishments from the worker decontamination and emergency assistance
provisions. While EPA believes this exemption applies to a small number
of people it is important that all workers on agricultural
establishments have access to decontamination supplies and emergency
assistance.
    The rule would retain the exemption for certified or licensed crop
advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI.
    The Agency has discussed these exemptions with the National
Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC). NAICC representatives
indicated that entry to perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a
rare event, especially for persons who are not certified or licensed
crop advisors (Ref. 104). Overall, the Agency believes that the
proposed revision would not have a significant impact on the majority
of crop advisors.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the crop advisor exemption
appears in Sec.  170.301(b) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of amending the
exemption for crop advisors would be $1,400, or less than $0.01 per
establishment. NAICC representatives noted that there may be some cost
to provide the WPS protections to currently-exempt supervised
employees. The Agency believes that there are few certified crop
advisors retained directly by agricultural establishments. For a
discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Should EPA consider an alternative to this proposal? If
so, what alternative and why?
     Should EPA require specific training for the employees of
crop advisors to ensure that they understand the risks of entering and
working in areas treated with pesticides? If so, please provide
specific information on the type of training and anticipated benefit to
crop advisor employees. Also, please comment on whether a crop
adviser's employees, who have received such training, should be exempt
from the WPS requirements for provisions for decontamination supplies
and emergency assistance and from following the labeling requirements
for PPE for early entry.

C. Revise the Exception to the Requirement for Workers To Be Fully
Trained Before Entering Pesticide-Treated Areas

    1. Overview. For workers who are not performing early-entry
activities, the existing WPS allows employers to delay training until
before work begins on the 6th day of entry into a treated area
providing the full required pesticide safety training to workers
performing WPS-covered activities (referred to as the ``grace
period''). During the grace period, the current WPS requires
agricultural employers to provide an abbreviated training covering two
major points: Where pesticides may be encountered and how to prevent
pesticides from entering a worker's body. In order to balance the need
for workers to receive sufficient information to protect themselves and
the need for agricultural employers to have flexibility in employing
workers, EPA proposes to shorten the grace period to two days and to
require that workers receive training on protecting themselves and
their families from pesticide exposure prior to entering a pesticide-
treated area during the grace period. In essence, this exception to the
general requirement that all workers be fully trained prior to entering
a pesticide-treated area to perform WPS tasks would allow agricultural
employers who have provided workers with certain essential safety
information to direct those workers to perform WPS tasks for no more
than 2 days before providing them with the full WPS pesticide safety
training, and require the employer to maintain records of the
information transfer for 2 years. The agricultural employer would be
required to provide each such worker full pesticide safety training
before allowing

the worker to enter a treated area for a third day. This proposal would
provide the agricultural employer with the flexibility to choose
whether to provide workers with full pesticide safety training
immediately upon employment or to utilize the 2 day grace period,
provided they comply with the conditions of the exception. EPA expects
this change would improve workers' understanding of the risks they may
face and how to protect themselves when they work in areas treated with
WPS-covered pesticides, while maintaining flexibility for agricultural
employers.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. When EPA was developing the 1992 WPS,
agricultural employers argued that they needed a training grace period
because qualified trainers were not available in sufficient numbers to
meet the need for worker training. To accommodate the need for
flexibility for agricultural employers and in recognition of the high
turnover in the workforce on some establishments, EPA adopted the grace
period. The 1992 rule allowed agricultural employers to direct workers
to perform work in pesticide-treated areas for up to 15 days before the
employer was required to provide the full pesticide safety training
outlined in Sec.  170.130 (57 FR 38151; August 21, 1992). On January 1,
1996, EPA reduced the grace period to 5 days (60 FR 21944; May 3,
1995).
    Under 40 CFR 170.130(a)(3)(ii), agricultural employers may direct
workers to perform work (except for early-entry activities) in areas
that, within the last 30 days, have been treated with a pesticide
bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS or have been under an
REI for such pesticide for up to 5 days before the employer must
provide the full pesticide safety training outlined in 40 CFR 170.130.
During the grace period, employers must inform workers of the following
points:

     Pesticides may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water,
or drifting from nearby applications;
     Prevent pesticides from entering your body by:

--Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or
restricted areas.
-- Washing before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or
using the toilet.
--Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues.
--Washing/showering with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean
clothes after work.
--Washing work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing
them again.
--Washing immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are
spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo,
and change into clean clothes.

     Further training will be provided within 5 days.
    See 40 CFR 170.130(c). Before the 6th day that workers remain on
the establishment working in areas that, within the last 30 days, have
been treated with a pesticide bearing a label requiring compliance with
the WPS or have been under an REI for such pesticide, the agricultural
employer must provide the full pesticide safety training.
    3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including Farmworker
Justice and Migrant Clinicians Network, have repeatedly raised concerns
for workers entering the pesticide-treated treated areas without
receiving the full pesticide safety training (Ref. 35). They noted that
the basic safety information provided prior to entry into a treated
area does not describe the hazards associated with pesticides, how to
recognize pesticide poisoning symptoms, or how to access emergency
medical care. The lack of information may be of particular concern for
workers performing tasks in recently treated areas or adjacent to an
area being treated because they may not know what to do if they are
sprayed or feel sick. Stakeholders also noted that a worker may be
employed for fewer than 5 days on each of a series of farms and, as a
result, may be at risk of significant pesticide exposure without ever
receiving the full pesticide safety training. This situation is
especially likely to occur during harvest periods, as workers may move
from one farm to another as the harvest is completed, resulting in
potentially large numbers of workers exposed to pesticides without full
safety training.
    Many of the SERs consulted by the SBAR panel requested that EPA
retain the current 5 day grace period (Ref. 18, p. 21). They noted that
employers have many legal obligations related to hiring a new employee,
and pesticide worker safety training is just one element. In comments
submitted to EPA, SERs informed EPA that the grace period offered
agricultural employers flexibility about when to provide full training
to workers without negatively impacting the performing of WPS tasks
essential to agricultural production.
    OSHA requires that employers provide training on potential chemical
hazards that employees may face in the workplace before allowing
employees to enter the area to begin work. These standards require
employers to provide hazard information to workers before they begin
any tasks that may expose them to a hazardous material or activity,
rather than allowing them to work for a period before receiving the
hazard information. See, e.g., the training requirements for employees
that may encounter lead, 29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1), asbestos, 29 CFR
1926.1127(m)(4), and cadmium, 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The exception would allow
agricultural employers to postpone providing full pesticide training
for up to 2 days after the worker begins work in WPS-covered areas. In
order to qualify for the exception, agricultural employers would be
required to provide certain safety information, which would incorporate
both the information currently required by the regulation and
additional content, to workers in a language and manner they understand
before workers perform any WPS tasks in a treated area. Agricultural
employers would also be required to maintain records of the information
provided to workers for 2 years. Finally, agricultural employers would
be required to provide the full pesticide safety training to workers
before sending them into any treated area for a third day where within
the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring
compliance with the WPS has been used, or an REI for such a pesticide
has been in effect.
    EPA believes that if the shortened grace period is adopted, it is
likely to reduce the number of workers that may be exposed to
pesticides without having the benefit of the full safety training. EPA
proposes to re-characterize the grace period as an exception to the
requirement that employers provide workers the full pesticide safety
training before the worker may enter a pesticide-treated area. EPA
believes that the shortened grace period and the requirement that
employers provide certain basic safety information to workers before
they enter a treated area (detailed below), and requiring recordkeeping
would balance the need for workers to be informed about risks to which
they may be exposed and the need for agricultural employers to have
some flexibility regarding pesticide safety training. EPA believes re-
characterizing the grace period as an exception would also make the
regulation easier to understand.
    In order to utilize the proposed exception, agricultural employers
would need to provide certain safety information to the workers in a
language

and manner they understand before the workers enter any pesticide-
treated area. The required information would cover four areas: (1)
Employer responsibilities for providing worker protections, (2)
information about potential hazards in the workplace, (3) how to
protect oneself from pesticide exposure and hazards in the workplace,
and (4) emergency first aid procedures for pesticide poisonings or
injuries. Under the four areas, the full list of topics to be conveyed
to workers would be:
Employer Responsibilities for Providing Worker Protections
--Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with
information and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide
exposures and illnesses. This includes providing pesticide safety
information to workers before being directed to work in pesticide
treated areas if they have not received full pesticide safety training;
providing full pesticide safety training to workers before their 3rd
day of work in pesticide treated areas; providing pesticide hazard
information for products used on the establishment, decontamination
supplies, and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of
restrictions during applications and on entering pesticide treated
areas.
--Agricultural employers must inform workers how to recognize and
understand the meaning of the warning sign used for notifying workers
of restrictions on entering pesticide treated areas on the
establishment. Workers must follow employer directions and/or signs
about keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide treated areas.
--Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker who has
not received full pesticide safety training and additional early entry
worker notification to work in any area that is currently under an REI.
Employers must comply with minimum age restrictions and notification
requirements in order to direct workers to perform early-entry
activities.
--Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix,
load, or apply pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides
unless the worker has been trained as a handler.
--Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening,
coercing, or discriminating against any worker for the purposes of
interfering with any attempt to comply with the requirements of this
part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted,
or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing pursuant to this part.
Information About Potential Pesticide Hazards in the Workplace
--There are potential sources of pesticide exposure on agricultural
establishments and pesticides and/or pesticide residues may be
encountered during work activities. This includes pesticides drifting
from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in
plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or
used personal protective equipment.
--Pesticides can cause illness or injury if they enter your body.
Pesticides can enter the body by getting them on your skin or in your
eyes, by swallowing them, or by breathing in their vapors.
--There are potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that
pesticides present to workers, including acute and chronic illnesses/
effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.
--There are potential hazards to children and pregnant women from
pesticide exposure.
How to Protect Yourself From Pesticide Exposure and Hazards in the
Workplace
--When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work
clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues and always wash
hands before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using
the toilet.
--Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into
clean clothes as soon as possible after working near or in pesticide
treated areas.
--There are potential hazards from the pesticide residues that may be
on work clothing. Wash work clothes before wearing them again, and
always wash work clothes separately from other clothes.
Emergency First Aid Procedures for Pesticide Poisonings or Injuries
--Pesticides may cause skin rashes or hurt your eyes, nose or throat.
Pesticides can make you feel sick in different ways, such as headache
or dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, nausea or vomiting, sweating,
drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing.
--Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled
or sprayed on the body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair,
and change into clean clothes. If a pesticide gets in your eyes, hold
them open and rinse with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse eyes for
15 minutes if possible.
--If you or someone you work with gets sick while working, tell your
employer right away. If you suspect you have been injured or made ill
from pesticides, get medical help as soon as possible. If you have been
injured from pesticides while working, your employer must provide
emergency transportation to a nearby medical facility and provide
information about the pesticide or pesticides that may have made you
sick.

    After the employer provides the workers with the safety information
in a language and manner they understand, the employer must create a
record of the information provided and provide a copy of the record to
the worker. The record would include the safety information conveyed to
the worker, an affirmation that the worker has been provide a copy of
the safety information sheet and that the information was communicated
to the worker orally in a language the worker understands, the worker's
name, signature, date of birth, the date the information was provided,
the employer's name, and employer's phone number or phone number of the
establishment. The employer can have all workers sign the record and
acknowledgement before providing copies to each worker.
    Finally, EPA is committed to protecting vulnerable populations.
Workers face risk of occupational exposure to pesticides. Through this
proposed change, EPA seeks to mitigate the elevated risk associated
with entering a treated area without training on what pesticide risks
may be encountered in the workplace and how to protect oneself from
pesticide exposure. EPA believes this proposal is consistent with the
principles of environmental justice, providing a population that may
face disproportionate risks of exposure based on the nature of their
tasks, limited understanding of English, low literacy, and low
education level with information in advance of the potential for
exposure.
    The proposed regulatory text establishing a 2 day grace period,
altering the requirements for training under the grace period, and
establishing a requirement to maintain records for 2 years appears in
Sec.  170.309 of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that replacing the current 5-
day grace period with the proposed 2-day exception to the requirement
for

employers to provide full pesticide safety training to workers before
directing workers to enter a pesticide treated area would cost $2.3
million, or about $6 per agricultural establishment. This cost estimate
does not include recordkeeping; the cost of the recordkeeping for
worker training is discussed in Unit VII.B. For a complete discussion
of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic
Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,''
Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA could not estimate specific benefits associated with this
proposal. However, EPA believes that providing certain safety
information to workers before they perform WPS tasks and shortening the
interval before they receive full training would 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.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an
alternative, EPA is considering eliminating the grace period. Under
this option, agricultural employers would be required to provide all
workers with full pesticide training before sending them into any
treated area where within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing
a label requiring compliance with the WPS has been used, or an REI for
such a pesticide has been in effect. Eliminating the grace period would
ensure that all workers are fully trained on how to protect both
themselves and their family members before entering an area covered by
the WPS. The estimated cost for eliminating the grace period for worker
training would be $2.8 million, or about $7 per establishment. The
increased cost comes from the employer having to provide full pesticide
safety training sessions every time workers enter the establishment to
perform WPS tasks, rather than waiting and holding a larger training
session for workers hired over a period of a few days. EPA does not
have sufficient data to compare the benefits of providing the pesticide
safety training before workers enter the treated area to ensure that
workers are fully prepared and aware of the potential risks they may
encounter in the workplace, and the costs that agricultural employers
might incur if the grace period were eliminated.
    Information exists that supports the alternative option to
eliminate the grace period entirely. First, the number of trainers may
be sufficient. EPA reduced the grace period from 15 to 5 days over 10
years ago in recognition that employers had less difficulty finding
someone to provide pesticide safety training to workers. Based on
significant outreach and support provided by EPA to training
organizations, such as AFOP, sufficient trainers may be available
nationally to meet the needs of agricultural employers without a grace
period. Second, 90% of workers report employment by 1 or 2
establishments a year (Ref. 3, p. 23). Employers now may deal with less
worker turnover and therefore may not need to provide multiple
trainings throughout the year. The lower burden on employers makes the
call for a grace period less compelling. Lastly, small business
representatives advised EPA that they generally provide training to
workers upon employment to comply with other regulations or for general
orientation (Ref. 18). Under the proposal for worker pesticide safety
training, once a worker is trained in a particular year, he or she
would receive a record of the training to show subsequent employers,
thereby eliminating the need for subsequent employers to repeat the
training.
    EPA notes that OSHA requires employers in almost all industries to
notify their workers of the hazards that may be encountered in the
workplace before the work begins (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)). This
requirement has been in place since 1983. OSHA established the standard
based on the belief that, without adequate knowledge of the potential
dangers in the workplace, workers would not be able to take protective
measures or avoid hazards (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987)(59 FR 6126;
February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63).
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following:
     Supply of trainers and how quickly they can be available.
     Frequency of hiring new workers during the year.
     Evidence about the frequency of illness for workers who
receive basic vs. full pesticide safety training.
     Should EPA eliminate the grace period? Why or why not?
     What would be the impact of eliminating the grace period
on agricultural employers, trainers, and/or workers?
     What would be the impact of a shorter grace period on
agricultural employers and trainers?
     Would retaining a shorter grace period as proposed
negatively impact workers? If so, how?
     Should EPA retain the current 5 day grace period or reduce
the grace period to 3 or 4 days? If EPA reduces the grace period to 3
or 4 days, what would be the relative impacts on agricultural employers
and workers as compared to the proposed reduced grace period of 2 days?

XIX. General Revisions to the WPS

A. Improved Definitions

    The Agency proposes to revise 40 CFR 170.3 by revising certain
definitions to provide greater clarity, by adding several new
definitions, and by eliminating several unnecessary definitions. EPA
believes that improved definitions would reduce the likelihood of
alternative interpretations, while improving compliance and
enforceability.
    The Agency believes these proposed revisions to the definitions
adopt more widely used and commonly accepted ``plain English''
language, and add clarity and consistency to the rule. The proposed
revisions to the definitions also help address regulatory or policy
issues raised by state regulatory partners and other program
stakeholders. The Agency does not believe the proposed revisions to the
definitions will add new regulatory requirements on the regulated
community or substantially increase regulatory burden.
    The following definitions appear in Sec.  170.5 of the proposed
rule.
    1. Revised definitions. The Agency proposes to revise the following
existing definitions: ``agricultural employer,'' ``agricultural
establishment,'' ``agricultural plant,'' ``commercial pesticide
handling establishment,'' ``crop advisor,'' ``farm,'' ``hand labor,''
``handler,'' ``handler employer,'' ``immediate family,'' ``nursery,''
and ``worker.''
    The Agency proposes to change the existing definition of
``immediate family'' as follows: ``. . . includes only spouse, parents,
stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, children,
stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law;
grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and
sisters-in-law.'' The remaining revisions to the existing definitions
are simply intended to clarify those terms, rather than substantively
alter them. Substantive changes to the immediate family exemption
considered but not proposed are discussed in Unit XVIII.A.
    2. New definitions. The Agency also proposes to add the following
new definitions: ``authorized representative,'' ``closed system,''
``commercial pesticide handler employer,'' ``commercial production,''
``enclosed space production,'' ``employ,'' ``enclosed cab,'' ``entry-
restricted area,'' ``forest operation,'' ``labor contractor,''
``outdoor production,'' ``personal protective

equipment,'' ``safety data sheet,'' ``use,'' and ``worker housing
area.''
    As an example of the changes to the definitions, the Agency
proposes to define ``employ'' as the receipt of either wages or salary
for work. Under the current rule, a person is covered by the WPS if he
or she receives any type of compensation. Current interpretations of
compensation include students receiving credits and garden club members
receiving benefits such as coffee and cake at meetings. The proposed
definition would limit WPS coverage to only those who receive pay and
perform worker or handler tasks when a pesticide has been applied or an
REI in effect on the establishment within the past 30 days.
    3. Definitions to be deleted. The Agency proposes to delete the
definition of ``greenhouse'' because it is no longer necessary as a
result of the proposed addition of ``enclosed space production.'' The
agency also proposes to delete the definition of ``forest'' because it
is being replaced with ``forest operation.'' Additional details
regarding significant proposed definition changes are discussed above.
    4. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     What impact do you expect on employers, workers, handlers,
or other stakeholders as a result of replacing the terms ``farms,''
``forests,'' ``nurseries,'' and ``greenhouses'' with the terms
``outdoor production'' and ``enclosed space production''?
     What are the impacts of revising the definition of
``immediate family''?
     Should EPA consider including cousins in the definition of
immediate family? Why or why not?
     What are the impacts of adding a definition of ``employ''?
     What are the impacts of adding a definition of
``authorized representative''?
     Are there other terms that the Agency should consider
clarifying, redefining, or eliminating from the rule? If so, please
provide detail about the term(s) and rationale for change.

B. Restructuring of Part 170

    In order to improve clarity and implement the principles of using
plain language in regulations, EPA proposes to reorganize the structure
of part 170 and to rename the rule. EPA expects the revised part 170
will be easier to read and understand, thereby improving compliance by
worker and handler employers.
    1. Existing part 170. Part 170, the Worker Protection Standard, is
organized into three subparts: ``General Provisions,'' ``Standard for
Workers,'' and ``Standard for Handlers.'' Often, content that applies
to both workers and handlers is repeated in two sections. The
exemptions and exceptions are listed throughout the rule. EPA has
received feedback from states, farmworker groups, employers, trainers,
and other stakeholder groups that part 170 is difficult to follow (Ref.
44).
    2. Details of the proposed rule. EPA proposes to rename the
regulation ``Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers and
Pesticide Handlers.'' The proposal would reorganize the rule into four
subparts: ``General Provisions,'' ``Requirements for Protection of
Agricultural Workers,'' ``Requirements for Protection of Pesticide
Handlers,'' and ``Exemptions and Exceptions.'' The ``General
Provisions'' subpart would describe certain obligations for
agricultural employers, handler employers, and those requirements that
apply to both. The subparts ``Requirements for Protection of
Agricultural Workers'' and ``Requirements for Protection of Pesticide
Handlers'' would provide information that supplements the general
duties and obligations for employers and outline the content of the
training and decontamination supplies that the employer must provide
for workers and handlers respectively. Finally, EPA consolidated most
of the exceptions and exemptions into a separate subpart to make them
easier to find and reference.
    EPA believes that the restructured rule will facilitate better
understanding of the rule by employers and state and tribal regulatory
agencies. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions:
     Is the restructuring clearer and easier to read and
understand?
     Are there other ways that part 170 could be simplified or
made clearer? If so, please provide suggested language and rationale.

XX. Implementation of this Proposal

    EPA proposes to make the final rule effective 60 days after the
date of publication in the Federal Register; however, compliance with
certain provisions, including the additional pesticide safety training
content and pesticide safety information and new signs for posting,
would not be required until 2 years after the publication date of the
final rule. The 2 year delay between publication of the final rule and
the effective date of the changes would give state and tribal
regulators, employers, trainers, and other stakeholders time to make
the necessary changes to their daily activities and for materials and
signs to be developed and made available. EPA expects that employers
would need new signs and training materials to transition to new
requirements. State regulators would need to become familiar with the
new regulation and conduct outreach to the regulated community.
    Trainers would have to become familiar with the additional training
content, to ensure that they meet any eligibility requirements, and to
obtain new training materials. EPA recognizes that training materials
that comply with the proposed expanded content must be available before
the effective date of the new training requirements. Therefore, EPA has
linked the effective date of the implementation of the proposed
additional pesticide safety training requirements for workers and
handlers to an announcement of availability of materials that satisfy
the new requirements in the Federal Register. If EPA announces the
availability of the materials sooner than18 months after the effective
date of the final rule, then the new training requirements would go
into effect 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. If EPA
announces the availability of materials that comply with the proposed
requirements more than 18 months after the effective date of the final
rule, then the proposed training requirements would not take effect
until 180 days after the announcement of availability publishes in the
Federal Register.
    To facilitate implementation, EPA plans to issue a ``how to
comply'' guidance document at the time the final rule is published, to
develop and disseminate new training materials, to conduct outreach to
all potentially affected parties, and to provide assistance to states.
    EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions:
     Please provide input on how to measure the efficacy of the
revised WPS once implemented. Describe specific data elements and how
EPA could use them to determine whether the revised regulation is
effective.
     What data would help to evaluate the impacts (costs) and
benefits of the rule after implementation? Describe specific data
elements and how EPA could use them to evaluate the costs and benefits
of the rule.
     If EPA evaluates the effectiveness and/or the impacts and
benefits of the rule, what timeframe should be used to conduct the
evaluation, e.g., should EPA begin a review after the rule is fully
implemented or a specific time period after full implementation? For
how long should EPA conduct the evaluation? Please provide additional
information

on methodology that could be used to conduct any evaluation.

XXI. Reference List

    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2013. Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard. Washington, DC.
    2. Lee, S-J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, Diebolt-Brown, B, Prado, J,
Lackovic, M, et al. ``Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-
Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural Applications.'' Environ
Health Perspect 119 (2011):1162-1169.
    3. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Policy. Office of Programmatic Policy. 2005. Findings From the
National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002: A Demographic
and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers. Research
Report No. 9.
    4. S. Rep. No. 92-883 (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session at
43-46 (1972). U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1972,
p. 4063.
    5. Rosenbaum, S and Shin, P. ``Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers:
Health Insurance Coverage and Access to Care.'' The Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. May 3, 2005. Pub no. 7314.
    6. Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update.
Economic Research Report No. 60. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economic Research Service.
    7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline.
    8. Harchelroad, F, et al. ``Treated vs. Reported Toxic
Exposures: Discrepancies Between a Poison Control Center and a
Member Hospital.'' Vet Hum Toxicol 32 (1990): 156-159.
    9. Chafee-Bahamon, C, Caplan, DL and Lovejoy, Jr, FH. ``Patterns
in Hospitals' Use of a Regional Poison Information Center.'' Am J
Public Health 73 (1983): 396-400.
    10. Veltri, JC, McElwee, NE and Schumacher, MC. ``Interpretation
and uses of data collection in poison control centers in the United
States.'' Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp 2 no.6 (1987): 389-397.
    11. Calvert, G M, et al. ``Acute pesticide poisoning among
agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005.'' American J
Ind Med 51, no. 12 (December 2008): 883-898.
    12. Reigart, JR and Roberts, JR. 1999. Recognition and
Management of Pesticide Poisonings. 5th Ed. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA 735-R-
98-003.
    13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Inspection
Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200,
1915.99, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 1928.21. March 20, 1998. CPL
02-02-038.
    14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard 40 CFR Parts 156 & 170 Interpretive Policy,
Question and Answers Web site.'' Retrieved August 25, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/wpsinterpolicy.htm.
    15. ARI/EPA General Training Issues Workgroup. 2003.
Recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
Improving Farmworker Pesticide Safety Training From the ARI/EPA
General Training Issues Workgroup.
    16. Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2004.
Train the Trainer Pilot Project Final Report.
    17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2005. Report on the National Assessment of EPA's Worker
Safety Program.
    18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2008. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned
Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and Certification of
Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Washington, DC.
    19. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1992. Hired Farmworkers:
Health and Well-Being at Risk. Report to Congressional Requesters.
GAO/HRD-92-46.
    20. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 2000. Pesticides:
Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their
Families. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED-00-40.
    21. Ward, MH, et al. ``Proximity to Crops and Residential
Exposure to Agricultural Herbicides in Iowa.'' Environ Health
Perspect 114, no. 6 (2006): 893-897.
    22. McCauley, LA, et al. ``Work Characteristics and Pesticide
Exposures Among Migrant Agricultural Families: a Community-based
Research Approach.'' Environ Health Perspect 109, no. 5 (2001): 533-
538.
    23. McCauley, L A, et al. ``Pesticide Exposure and Self Reported
Home Hygiene: Practices in Agricultural Families.'' AAOHN Journal.
51, no. 3 (2003):113-119.
    24. Rao, P, et al. ``Pesticide Safety Behaviors in Latino
Farmworker Family Households.'' Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 271-
280.
    25. Bradman, A, et al. ``Community-Based Intervention To Reduce
Pesticide Exposure to Farmworkers and Potential Take-Home Exposure
to Their Families.'' J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 19, no.1
(2009):179-189.
    26. Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments from the Natural
Resources Defense Council on the Revised Risk Assessment Methods for
Workers, Children of Workers in Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides
With No Food Uses (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0889-0002). April 2010.
    27. Human Rights Watch. Fingers to the Bone: United States
Failure To Protect Child Farmworkers. 2000. Washington, DC.
    28. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. 1998.
Report of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the Selection of Five
Regulations for Re-Evaluation.
    29. Calvert, GM, et al. ``Acute Pesticide-related Illnesses
Among Working Youths, 1988-1999.'' Am J Public Health 93, no. 4
(2003): 605-610.
    30. Curl, CL, et al. ``Evaluation of Take-home Organophosphorus
Pesticide Exposure Among Agricultural Workers and Their Children.''
Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002): A787-A792.
    31. Coronado, GD, et al. ``Agricultural Task and Exposure to
Organophosphate Pesticides Among Farmworkers.'' Environ Health
Perspect 112, no. 2 (2004): 142-147.
    32. S[aacute]nchez Lizardi, P, O'Rourke, MK and Morris, RJ.
``The Effects of Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure on Hispanic
Children's Cognitive and Behavioral Functioning.'' J Pediatr Psychol
33, no. 1 (2007): 91-101.
    33. Das, R, et al. ``Pesticide-Related Illness Among Migrant
Farm Workers in the United States.'' Int J Occup Environ Health 7,
no. 4 (2001): 303-312.
    34. Goldman, L, et al. ``Risk Behaviors for Pesticide Exposure
Among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas,
California.'' Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-499.
    35. Davis, S., et. al. Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson. On behalf of Farmworker
Justice et al. December 15, 2006.
    36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2007. Compiled Comments of the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee on May 2007 Issue Papers. Washington, DC.
    37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2007. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety
Regulation Change Subgroup, Summary of PREP and PPDC Comments.
Washington, DC.
    38. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, K. ``Long-Term
Effectiveness of Infection Control Training among Fourth Year
Medical Students.'' Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, (2000): 1-7.
http://www.med-ed-online.org
    39. Spradley, Ples. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on Pesticide Worker Safety Program
Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators.
June 7, 2007.
    40. Glasnapp, J. and Nakamoto, J. 2007. Hazard Communications
for Agricultural Workers. JBS International, Inc. Aguirre Division.
    41. Adams, S. ``Improving safety instruction and results: Five
principles of sound training. Professional Safety.'' Professional
Safety. December 1, 2000. Article available at http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/employee-training-assistance-employee/11442447-1.html.
    42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2008. Summary of Potential SER Written and Oral Comments
Received in Response to Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
Outreach Meetings. Washington, DC.
    43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2010. Worker Pesticide Safety Training Verification Card
Order Report. Washington, DC.
    44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. 2000. The National Assessment of the Worker Safety
Program, Stakeholder Workshop #1.
    45. Dubberly, D. Email correspondence to Elizabeth Evans, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services. July 18, 2006.
    46. American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators. 2006. FL
SDA Comments

on EPA's Plans for Proposed C&T and WPS Rule Changes. Washington,
DC.
    47. NASDAF Workgroup. National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook:
Pesticide Safety for Agricultural Workers. (Washington, DC: National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture Foundation, 2008).
EPA Cooperative agreement no. X8-83235401.
    48. Wallerstein, N and Rubenstein, H. Teaching about Job
Hazards, A Guide for Workers and Their Health Providers.
(Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, 1993.)
    49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health. Report to Congress on Workers' Home
Contamination Study Conducted Under the Workers' Family Protection
Act (29 U.S.C. 671a). September 1995. Publication No. 95-123.
    50. Lu, C, et al. ``Pesticide Exposure of Children in an
Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland
and Take Home Exposure Pathways.'' Environmental Research 84, no. 3
(2000):b290-302.
    51. Lambert, W E, et al. ``Variation in Organophosphate
Pesticide Metabolites in Urine of Children Living in Agricultural
Communities.'' Environ Health Perspect 113, no. 4 (2005): 504-508.
    52. Arcury, T A, et al. ``Pesticide Urinary Metabolite Levels of
Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households.'' Environ
Health Perspect 115, no. 8 (2007): 1254-1260.
    53. Liebman, A K, et al. ``A Pilot Program using Promotoras de
Salud to Educate Farmworker Families About the Risks from Pesticide
Exposure.'' J Agromedicine 12, no. 2 (2007):33-43.
    54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Children's
Environmental Health Centers (CEHCs) Web site.'' Retrieved April 21,
2011. http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/.
    55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Children's
Environmental Health Centers (CEHCs): University of California at
Berkeley Center for Children's Environmental Health Research Web
site'' Retrieved August 5, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/berkeley.html.
    56. Bradman, M A, et al. ``Pesticide Exposures to Children From
California's Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.'' J Expo Anal
Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234.
    57. Quandt, S A, et al. ``Agricultural and Residential
Pesticides in Wipe Samples From Farmworker Family Residences in
North Carolina and Virginia.'' 112, no. 3 (2004): 382-387.
    58. Coronado, G D, et al. ``Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure
and Work in Pome Fruit: Evidence for the Take-home Pesticide
Pathway.'' Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 999-1006.
    59. Wolgalter, S, Sojourner, J and Brelsford, J. ``Comprehension
and retention of safety pictorials.'' Ergonomics. 40, no. 5 (1997):
531-542.
    60. Spencer, J R. November 2, 2001. Health and Safety Report:
Analysis of the Impact of the Federal Worker Protection Standard and
Recommendations for Improving California's Worker Protection Program
Regarding Field Posting. California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Pesticide Regulation. HS-1819.
    61. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Policy. Office of Program Economics. 2000. Findings From the
National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998. Research
Report No. 8.
    62. Davis, TC, et al. ``Low Literacy Impairs Comprehension of
Prescription Warning Labels.'' J Gen Intern Med 21, no. 8 (2006):
847-851.
    63. U.S. General Accounting Office 1992. Employers' Experiences
in Complying with the Hazard Communication Standard. Briefing Report
to Congressional Requesters. GAO/HRD-92-63BR.
    64. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. ``State Occupational Safety and Health Plans Web
site.'' Retrieved September 14, 2011. http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html.
    65. U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training
Administration. ``The National Agricultural Workers Survey Web
site.'' Retrieved January 11, 2011. http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm.
    66. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 2, Chapter 9,
Subchapter L, Part 1807. 2009.
    67. Cotto-Febo, S. ``Portable Central Location Project.''
(Presentation, Presented October,3, 2007 at Worker Safety and Health
Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington VA.
October 3, 2007.)
    68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance. 2006. Overview of WPS Violations During
2006 Inspections.
    69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance. 2007. Overview of WPS Violations during
2007 Inspections.
    70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance. 2008. Overview of WPS Violations during
2008 Inspections.
    71. Calvert, G M, et al. ``Case Report: Three Farmworkers Who
Gave Birth to Infants With Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and
Place--Florida and North Carolina, 2004-2005.'' Environ Health
Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007): 787-791.
    72. Cline, JS. Letter to Jim Jones, Director of the Office of
Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf
of North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. February
2007.
    73. Washington State Department of Health. 2010. 2009 Annual
Report: Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel.
    74. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. Letter to
Administrator Stephen J. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Recommendations Regarding Protecting Farmworker
Children. November 15, 2005.
    75. Krieger, R, et al. ``Gauging Pesticide Exposure of Handlers
(mixers/loaders/applicators) and Harvesters in California
Agriculture.'' Med Lav 81, no. 6 (1990): 474-479.
    76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S.
Department of Labor for Changes to Hazardous Orders. May 3, 2002.
    77. Casey, BJ, Jones, RM and Hare, T A. ``The Adolescent
Brain.'' Ann N Y Acad Sci March (2008): 111-126.
    78. Farmworker Justice et al. Pesticides In the Air--Kids at
Risk: Petition to EPA to Protect Children From Pesticide Drift.
October 13, 2009.
    79. Young, M and Rischeitelli, D G. ``Occupational Risks and
Risk Perception among Hispanic Adolescents.'' McGill J Med 9, no. 1
(2006): 49-53.
    80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. How To Comply With the
Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What
Employers Need To Know. Revised 2005.
    81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. USDA Comments
for the PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup. Washington,
DC.
    82. Freeman Adcock, R, McAllister, R and Kelly, A. Letter to
Kathy Davis, Certification and Worker Protection Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Comments on Position Papers
Relating to Worker Protection Standards (WPS). Pesticide Policy
Coalition. August 31, 2007.
    83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transmittal of Meeting
Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held December
2-5, 2008 on the Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry
Exposure Assessment. February 19, 2009.
    84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. Updated August 2010. Label Review Manual Chapter 7:
Precautionary Statements.
    85. American National Standards Institute. American National
Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment. ANSI Z358.1-
1990.
    86. Cooke, G, et al. 2011. Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis
Program Annual Report: Federal Fiscal Year 2010. Oregon Department
of Consumer and Business Services. Information Management Division.
    87. Matoian, R. Letter to Joe Hogue, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Small Business Representative comments on WPS.
July 14, 2008.
    88. Arcury, T A, et al. ``Farmworker reports of pesticide safety
and sanitation in the work environment.'' Am J Ind Med 39, no. 5
(2001): 487-498.
    89. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California
Code of Regulations. Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6.
Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6746. 2012.
    90. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California
Code of Regulations. Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6.
Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6000. 2012.
    91. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Worker Health
and Safety Branch. Closed Systems Director's Memo. January 2, 1998.
    92. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health. 2004. NIOSH Alert: Preventing
Occupational Exposures to Antioplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in
Health Care Settings. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004-165.
    93. Minnesota Department of Health. ``Medical Screening Web
site: Physiologic effects of respirator use.'' Retrieved November
17, 2010. Calvert, G M and Higgins, S A. ``Using Surveillance Data
to Promote Occupational Health and Safety Policies and Practices at
the State Level: a Case Study.'' Am J Ind Med 53, no. 2 (2010): 188-
193.
    94. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California
Code of Regulations. Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6.
Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6720-6746.
    95. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.
``Cholinesterase Monitoring Web site.'' Retrieved March 15, 2011.
http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/.
    96. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.
Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 2009. Cholinesterase
Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2009 Report.
    97. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.
Division of Occupational Safety and Health. January 2007.
Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture:
Report to the Legislature.
    98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. ``Pesticide Reregistration Status for Organophosphates Web
site.'' Retrieved May 10, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_op.htm.
    99. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident
Reporting and Tracking Review Panel 2005 Annual Report. December
2005.
    100. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident
Reporting and Tracking Review Panel Annual Report. May 2007.
    101. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2003.
Benefit-Cost Determination: Cholinesterase Monitoring in
Agriculture. WAC 296-307-148.
    102. Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs. 2011.
Dangerous Exposure: Farmworker Children and Pesticides. Health and
Safety Programs Annual Report, Vol. 1.
    103. Eskenazi, B, Bradman, A and Castorina, R. ``Exposures of
Children to Organophosphate Pesticides and their Potential Adverse
Health Effects.'' Environ Health Perspect Environ Health Perspect
107, Suppl. 3 (1999): 409-419.
    104. Jones, A and Smith, L. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch
Chief, Certification & Worker Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue Paper, ``Making the
Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor
Employees & Aerial Apps.'' On behalf of National Alliance of
Independent Crop Consultants, Certified Crop Advisors. 2006.
    105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard Training and Notification (Proposed Rule). EPA
ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control No. 2070--NEW. 2013.
    106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard Training and Notification. EPA ICR number
1759.07 and OMB Control No. 2070-0148. 2013.

XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements

    Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has submitted a draft of the
proposed rule to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the
appropriate Congressional Committees. Their comments on this proposed
rule and EPA's responses are located in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The Science Advisory Panel waived its review of this proposal on
February 7, 2013.

XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and,
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rulemaking to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011), and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the public
docket for this action.
    Each of the WPS provisions is intended to do one of the following:
(1) Inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and
risks from pesticides they use or with which they come into contact in
the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational
exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects, or (3)
mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide
exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, EPA evaluated
the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is proposing a
set of requirements that, in combination, is expected to achieve
substantial benefits at minimum cost. In addition, EPA prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
proposed action, titled ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to
the Worker Protection Standard'' (Ref. 1). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here.
    EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed revisions to be
between about $62.1 million and $72.9 million annually. These costs are
almost entirely borne by farms that hire labor and use pesticides,
which account for about 25 percent of all crop farms in the United
States. Commercial pesticide handling establishments, which contract to
apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost of $170 to $190
per year per firm. The cost to individual farms will depend on the
number and type of employees employed. EPA estimates that larger farms
will incur costs of $340 to $400 per year. Smaller operations are
estimated to incur costs between $130 and $150 per year, which amounts
to less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenue.
    The incremental cost to employ a worker is estimated to be less
than $5 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on
employment. The incremental cost to employ a pesticide handler is
estimated to be about $60 per year, which represents 0.3 percent of the
total cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not
be expected to have an impact on job availability.
    The benefits of the proposed rule would accrue to agricultural
workers, pesticide handlers and, indirectly due to reduced take-home
pesticide exposure, to their families. The revised rule is expected to
substantially mitigate the potential for adverse health effects (both
acute and chronic) for these workers and handlers from occupational
exposures to pesticides.
    It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project
the risk reduction that will result from this rulemaking, because
workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of
pesticides with different toxicities and risks; however, the proposed
changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all
pesticides. EPA believes there is sufficient evidence in the peer-
reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result
in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic
illness.
    Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed
requirements would result in long-term health benefits to agricultural
workers and pesticide handlers. EPA is not able to estimate the dollar
value of the benefits that accrue from reducing chronic exposure to
pesticides but there are well-documented associations between pesticide
exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic health effects in

the peer-reviewed literature. The proposed requirements provide
benefits to the 2.3 million workers and pesticide handlers, not only by
reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures but also by improving
quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a lower cost of
healthcare and a healthier society. Many of the changes to current WPS
requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers to
transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the proposed
requirements are expected to reduce children's exposure to pesticides.
The agency believes the unquantified benefits to children of workers
and handlers are great, and reducing exposure to pesticides could
translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of school, improved
capacity to learn, and better long-term health. Parents and caregivers
reap benefits by having healthier families, fewer missed workdays, and
better quality of life, as well.
    EPA does estimate a value of avoided acute incidents as a result of
the proposed rule, although this estimate is biased downward by an
unknown degree for several reasons. First, pesticide incidents, like
many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may
not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and
correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed with the central reporting
database. Second, our approach only measures avoided medical costs and
lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due
to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. Just the
small amount EPA is able to monetize accrues to be between $1.2 million
and $2.8 million annually. The effect of underreporting can be
significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range
of estimates in the literature), the quantified estimated benefits of