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

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

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

NOTIFY-17
Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options:  requiring additional pesticide safety displays with all posted field warning (REI) signs or at worker changing sites.  They noted that having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency personnel.

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms

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

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
          Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler
CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer prior to application of:
   * the location and description of the area to be treated;
   * date and time of application;
   * the product name, active ingredient and EPA registration number for the product,
   * the REI,
   * whether posting and oral notification are required (double notification),
   * any other product-specific protections for humans from the labeling
CPHE employer must notify the agricultural employer prior to any changes in the application

Subsequent guidance allows some flexibility in notification of changes
CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer prior to application of:
   * the location and description of the area to be treated;
   * date and time of application;
   * estimated time application ends;
   * the product name, active ingredient and EPA registration number for the product,
   * the REI,
   * whether posting and oral notification are required (double notification),
   * any other product-specific protections for humans from the labeling
CPHE employer must notify agricultural employer of any changes within 2 hours of end of application (not required if time of application changes < 1 hour)
                                  (NOTIFY-18)
                      No change from current requirements

NOTIFY-18
Under the proposed option, the CPHE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer of the application information prior to the pesticide application.  Notification of a change to the estimated application end time would be required within two hours of the end of the application, and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification.  See Unit X of the NPRM for details.  This revision largely clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS.

2.3	Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

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

2.3.1	Minimum Age Options

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

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

Table 2.3-1.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age Restrictions.
Current Requirement
                            Proposed Requirement 1
Alternative Requirement
No age restriction on person performing early entry activities
Employee must be 16 years of age to be directed to perform early entry activities
                                   (AGE-01)
Employee must be 18 years of age to be directed to perform early entry activities
                                   (AGE-02)
No age restriction on person performing handling activities
Employee must be 16 years of age to perform handler duties
                                   (AGE-03)
Employee must be 18 years of age to perform handler duties
                                   (AGE-04)
[1]	Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.

AGE-01/03
EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers entering fields during a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 16 years of age.  As explained in more detail in Chapters 1 and 6, studies have suggested that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive (EPA, 2002)).  Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health.  Further, young adults may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006)).  Thus, they may be less likely to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations.  In the case of handlers, adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment.  EPA estimates that there are about 19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 involved in early entry activities each year.  There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikely that youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs.

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

2.3.2	Options for Entry Restrictions

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

Table 2.3-2.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Entry Restrictions.
Current Requirement
Proposed Requirement
Alternative Requirement
                           Entry During Application
During a pesticide application in nurseries and greenhouses, the employer must not allow or direct any persons, except trained and equipped handlers, to enter the entry restricted area adjacent to the treatment area.
During a pesticide application  on farms and forests, as well as nurseries and greenhouses, the employer must not allow or direct any persons, except trained and equipped handlers, to enter the entry restricted area adjacent to the treated area
                                  (ENTRY-01)
                      No change from current requirements
Handler must assure pesticide is not applied so as to contact any worker or other person, other than a trained and equipped handler.
In addition to current requirement, handlers must cease application if a person enters the entry restricted area
                                  (ENTRY-02)
                      No change from current requirements
                               Entry During REI
Workers may enter a treated area during a REI, if label-required protections are provided, for
   * no contact activities
   * short term activities (<= 1 hour) not including hand labor
   * limited contact activities not including hand labor (<= 8 hours)
   * irrigation activities not including hand labor (<= 8 hours)
   * agricultural emergencies including hand labor (no time limit)
For agricultural emergencies where a double notification product has been used, entry must not exceed 4 hours in a 24 hour period
                                  (ENTRY-03)
For agricultural emergencies where a double notification product has been used, entry must not exceed 8 hours in a  24 hour period
                                  (ENTRY-04)
                                      or
Exceptions would no longer be allowed
                                  (ENTRY-06)
                           Cholinesterase Inhibition
No restrictions on handlers
                      No change from current requirements
Monitor for cholinesterase inhibition and prohibit further activity with cholinesterase-inhibiting products if inhibition is found
                                  (ENTRY-07)
                                      or
Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting products to 30 hours in 30 days
                                  (ENTRY-08)

Entry during Application

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

ENTRY-01
The proposed requirement would establish an "entry restricted area" of 25 to 100 feet around the area being treated, depending on the method of application, on farms and forestry operations, similar to the area already required in nurseries and greenhouses.  The size of the restricted area is based on the pesticide application method because some methods, such as aerial applications, are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in-furrow applications.  The entry restricted area is limited to property under control of the employer.  See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details.  This "entry restricted area" would protect workers, other employees, and potentially the public in U-Pick operations from pesticide drift.  See Chapter 1.

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

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

Entry During REI

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues.  Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop-specific requirements for the REI  -  the time after the end of an application during which worker entry is restricted  -  based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces and the transferability of residues during worker activities.  The REI is based on the activity resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can be used.  For example, if applications are prohibited in the latter part of the season, EPA would not be concerned about exposure during harvest.  Early entry into the treated area during the REI is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical for agricultural production.  For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the workers.  However, for "agricultural emergencies," the WPS does not currently specify the length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area.

ENTRY-03
For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers can spend in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used.  Please see the NPRM, Unit XII.D for details.  Products require double-notification warnings (both oral and sign warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity.  The benefit of the restriction is to limit the duration of any exposure, which increases the likelihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained while the worker is in the field.  The four-hour limit is half the allowed time for the irrigation and limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to adhere.

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

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

Cholinesterase Inhibition

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

ENTRY-07
One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as is done in Washington State.  In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition.  When indication of inhibition is found, handler exposure to such pesticides is restricted for a period of time.  ChE levels can be determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for cholinesterase levels to which the test can be compared.  Thus, a monitoring program would require an initial sample to establish the handler's own pre-exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow-up tests to measure inhibition.

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

ENTRY-08
Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 30 hours in any 30 day period.  This requirement would be similar to the approach California developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more than the limit.  Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that would trigger monitoring.  The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects would be avoided.  ChE inhibition is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have returned to normal will result in greater and greater inhibition.  However, there is no scientific basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit.  Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain.

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

2.3.3	Options for Personal Protective Equipment

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

Table 2.3-3.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective Equipment
Current Requirement
Proposed Requirement
Alternative Requirement
Handler employer is required to confirm respirator fit.
Require fit test, training and medical evaluation conforming to OSHA requirements; keep records
                                   (PPE-01)
                      No change from current requirements
Employers are exempt from certain WPS requirements regarding employees under the supervision of Certified Crop Advisors
Eliminate exemption for WPS employers
                                   (PPE-02)
                                      and
Eliminate exemption for employers of commercial advising services
                                   (PPE-03)
                      No change from current requirements
Substitution of closed system for PPE while mixing/loading pesticides.
Define closed system and require records of system maintenance.
                                   (PPE-04)
                      No change from current requirements
Contaminated PPE must be disposed properly
Contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable and disposed properly
                                   (PPE-05)
                      No change from current requirements

PPE-01
The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly.  The proposal would establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirator wearer, and medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator.  This revision incorporates OSHA requirements that apply to workers in other industries.  See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM.  This requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit.  The respirator training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify when filters need replacement.  The medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help handlers determine if they can safely wear the device.  For the employer, the revision would also clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee.  Finally, as noted with similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance.

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

PPE-04
Under the current regulations, a closed mixing and loading system may be substituted for label-required PPE.   A closed system, under the current rule, is simply defined as "a properly functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons."  This definition lacks specificity.

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

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

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

2.4	Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

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

2.4.1	Decontamination Supply Options

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

Table 2.4-2.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination Supplies.
Current Requirement
Proposed Requirement
Alternative Requirement
                     Decontamination Supplies for Workers
Provide "enough" (1 gallon) water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing
Provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing.
                                  (SUPPLY-01)
                      No change from current requirements
Provide "sufficient" water (1 gallon) per early entry worker for  thorough washing; provide 1 pint water for eye flushing as required
Provide 3 gallons of water per early entry worker for thorough washing; provide 1 pint water for eye flushing as required
                                  (SUPPLY-02)
                      No change from current requirements
                     Decontamination Supplies for Handlers
Provide "enough" decontamination water per handler
Three gallons per handler for routine hand washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency.
                                  (SUPPLY-03)
Showers required at permanent mix/load sites
                                  (SUPPLY-04)

All permanent mix/load sites require sufficient running water to flush eyes for 15 minutes at 1.5 L/min. whenever a product requiring handler eye protection is being used
                                  (SUPPLY-05)
Portable eye wash stations  required at all mix/load sites
                                  (SUPPLY-06)

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

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

SUPPLY-01
The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide one gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing.  This codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement agencies.  See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details.

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

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

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

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

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

SUPPLY-05
This proposed potential requirement would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute.  This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-1990.  See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for a complete description of the proposal.  The requirement is intended to provide handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides.  Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient.

SUPPLY-06
A similar requirement would require portable eyewash stations at all mixing/loading sites, not just the permanent sites.  The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other than those permanently dedicated for mixing pesticides.  However, reports from state authorities indicate that the stations can be difficult to maintain and keep clean.  Bacteria may become problematic.  See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a complete discussion.

2.4.2	Options for Emergency Response

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

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

"Prompt" provision of transportation, and obtainable information on product name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, and medical information (symptoms, antidote, etc.), circumstances of exposure to the pesticide for agricultural workers
Provision of emergency transportation and of SDS or label or comparable information to medical personnel or the injured person within 30 minutes
                                  (EMERG-01)
Provision of same within 60 minutes
                                  (EMERG-02)
"Prompt" provision of transportation, and obtainable information on the product name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, and medical information, circumstances of handling of and exposure to the pesticide for pesticide handlers
Provision of emergency transportation and of SDS or label or comparable information to medical personnel or the injured person within 30 minutes
                                  (EMERG-03)
Provision within 60 minutes
                                  (EMERG-04)

EMERG-01/03
EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide handlers (EMERG-03).  Without a formal definition of "prompt" it is difficult for agricultural employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance.  Clarification of the term "prompt" is intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transport for medical treatment for an emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner.

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

EMERG-02/04
The alternative considered was to define "prompt" as 60 minutes.  In terms of clarifying the regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal.  However, the longer time frame would clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is provided within 30 minutes.

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

The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives.

Chapter 3.  Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

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

These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements.  We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on `typical' practices when, in fact, there is great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector.  EPA has, therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders.  While assumptions are made regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms.  EPA has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be in full compliance with the proposed regulations.  This is clearly not the case; state authorities conduct inspections of farms and find violations.  However, inspections are not conducted randomly across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the result of specific complaints.  As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful information on compliance rates.

As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements.  However, because many of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost or lead to an overestimate of incremental cost.  Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions.

3.1	Overview

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs).  For simplicity, we use the term "WPS farm" to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS.  Forestry operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training and notification.  Generally speaking, the revisions would require owners/operators of these establishments to devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure.  EPA estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the value of the time and materials expended to comply.  Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct out-of-pocket expenses.

In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate their time or make expenditures.  Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the management of the WPS farm or CPHE.  The nature of these activities may vary by certain characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced.  Other activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups:  workers and handlers.  Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products.  Hand labor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling.  Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g., to mix, load, and/or apply pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs.  Note that WPS handlers are typically workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail handling pesticides.  Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule depends on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time.

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

3.2.	Regional Groupings

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

Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well as the other jurisdictions they represent.  The majority of the regions were defined by geographic location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas.  For example, the South region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco accounting for the highest value throughout the region.  The regions represented by New York, Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way.  The region represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e., extensive livestock production, rather than geographical continuity.  EPA also considered similarities in worker activities in constructing the regions.  Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production.  California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the state's more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and other states' requirements.

Table 3.2-1.  Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups.
Region
                             Representative State
                              Other Jurisdictions
South
                                   Arkansas
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
California
                                  California
                                     none
Southwest
                                   Colorado
Arizona and New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes
Subtropical
                                    Florida
                                    Hawaii
Midwest
                                     Iowa
     Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
Northeast
                                   New York
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia, plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Ohio Valley
                                     Ohio
        Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin
Texas and Mountain West
                                     Texas
                      Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming
Northwest
                                  Washington
             Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe

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

EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards.   The baseline is applied to all states within the region.  In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be as great within a region as over the nation as a whole.  However, the converse is also true; that is, there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-level estimates of cost are greater than the variation in regional-level estimates.

3.3	Cost of Potential Requirements

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

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

3.3.1	General Methodology

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

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

costr,i,aBt=jwa∙Hr,i,a,jBt∙Probt(j|i)+mcm∙Mr,i,a,mBt∙Probt(m|i)

where costr,i,a[B]t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in region i, for an actor, a, in time t; Hr,i,a,j[B]t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; wa is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Probt(j|i) is the probability of activity j in time t given the region; Mr,i,a,m[P]t is the quantity of material m needed in time t under the requirement; cm is the cost of material; and Probt (m|i) is the probability of material m being required in time t given the region.  An actor may be an establishment, primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g., a pesticide handler or agricultural worker.  For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g., farms according to the size of the operation.  Activities conducted by the establishment include posting signs and keeping records.  Activities occurring for each employee include attending training and obtaining written material from the employer, that is, activities for which an establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity.  The probability weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year.  For example, if training is required biennially, any given employee would have about a 50 percent chance of taking a training.

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

costr,aPt=jwa∙Hr,a,jPt∙Probt(j)+mcm∙Mr,a,mPt∙Probt(m)

where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement.  For simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i, denoting a state or region.  State requirements can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential federal requirements, they would remain in place.  Thus, in Step 1, we restrict Hr,i,,a,j[B] <= Hr,a,j[P] and Mr,i,,a,m[B] <= Mr,a,m[P]; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings.

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

RCr,iBt=acostr,i,aBtxNa,it

RCr,iPt=acostr,aPtxNa,it

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

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

NCrXt=iRCr,iXt

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

PVRCr,iX=t=110RCr,iXt(1+ρ)t-1

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

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

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

PVRICr,i=PVRCr,iP-PVRCr,iB

Where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i.  The PV of national incremental cost, PV(NICr), is calculated the same way.

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

AICr=PV(NICr)xρ∙(1+ρ)T(1+ρ)T-1

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

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

3.3.2	General Data

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

Establishments, Farms

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States.  At EPA's request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify the number of these operations that use pesticides and hire labor.  Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the WPS requirements.  However, the WPS applies only to those pesticides used in the commercial or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses.  Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not covered by the WPS.  Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock production.  There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, however, that are included in this analysis.  Table 3.3-1 presents the number of farms where crops are raised, including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis.  According to the tabulation, 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007.  However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year.  Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS requirements; these operations will be referred to as "WPS farms."  This may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic growers.  However, many organic producers also have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements.

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

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

Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms[1].
Region
                                 Crop Farms 1
                                Regional Share
                            Farms Using Pesticides
                              Farms Hiring Labor
United States
1,564,178

788,582
394,658
South
233,063
14.9%
117,499
58,804
California
96,979
6.2%
48,892
24,469
Southwest
50,054
3.2%
25,235
12,629
Subtropical
39,104
2.5%
19,715
9,866
Midwest
339,427
21.7%
171,122
85,641
Northeast
161,110
10.3%
81,224
40,650
Ohio Valley
361,325
23.1%
182,162
91,166
Texas/Mountain West
192,394
12.3%
96,996
48,543
Northwest
90,722
5.8%
45,738
22,890
Source:	U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)
[1]	Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops.

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

Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on the impacts of many of the requirements.  For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a pesticide handler.  Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a commercial applicator.  The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013).  EPA further subdivides the small farm category into three groups:  small-small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000.  Feedlot operations, some of which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million.  Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million.  These distinctions correlate to the number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts.  They also correlate to pesticide use.  Around 90 percent of large and large-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did.  Seventy-four percent of medium-small farms used pesticides.

Table 3.3-2.  Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, and CPHEs.
Region
                                   WPS Farms
                                 Small-Small 1
                                Medium-Small 2
                                 Large-Small 3
                                    Large 4
South
58,804
11,906
18,062
20,746
8,089
California
24,469
4,954
7,516
8,633
3,366
Southwest
12,629
2,557
3,879
4,456
1,737
Subtropical
9,866
1,998
3,031
3,481
1,357
Midwest
85,641
17,340
26,305
30,214
11,781
Northeast
40,650
8,231
12,486
14,341
5,592
Ohio Valley
91,166
18,459
28,003
32,164
12,541
Texas/Mountain West
48,543
9,829
14,910
17,126
6,678
Northwest
22,890
4,635
7,031
8,076
3,149
U.S.
394,658
79,909
121,223
139,237
54,289
Source:	Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).  Establishments distributed across regions according to distribution of all crop farms.
[1]	Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000.
[2]	Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000.
[3]	Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million.
[4]	Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 million.

Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers

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

Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications.  Based on conversations with the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 commercial aerial applicators nationwide.  Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishments.  Given the proportion from Dun & Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at least one employee.

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

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

Table 3.3-3.  Estimated number of CPHEs, by region.
Region
                                     CPHE
                              multiple employees
                                     CPHE
                                 few employees
                                     CPHE
                                 self-employed
South
416
918
765
California
173
1,049
874
Southwest
89
662
552
Subtropical
70
120
110
Midwest
606
8,355
6,963
Northeast
288
3,386
2,822
Ohio Valley
645
2,404
2,003
Texas/Mountain West
344
889
741
Northwest
162
3,113
2,594
U.S.
2,793
20,897
17,414
Source:	EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007).

Establishments, Wage Rates

The value of the owner/operator's time is important in the estimation of the cost of most requirements.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for farm establishments are $19.75 per hour.  The full value of time would also include the value of benefits received, such as insurance.  BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010).  We, therefore, use a loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as the full value of time.  For commercial pesticide handling establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers (since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - "Support Activities for Crop Production") for SOC code 37-1012 ("First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers") (BLS, 2007c).  Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this category is $30.30 per hour.

Employees, Farmworkers

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

Table 3.3-4.  Hired Labor on Crop Farms, by size.
Region
                                  Farm Labor
                                Regional Share
                                  Farm Labor
                                 Large Farms 1
                                  Farm Labor
                                 Small Farms 1
United States
2,322,610

1,084,121
1,238,489
South
274,068
11.8%
127,926
146,142
California
394,844
17.0%
184,301
210,543
Southwest
78,969
3.4%
36,860
42,109
Subtropical
111,485
4.8%
52,038
59,447
Midwest
299,617
12.9%
139,852
159,765
Northeast
278,713
12.0%
130,095
148,619
Ohio Valley
353,037
15.2%
164,786
188,250
Texas/Mountain West
185,809
8.0%
86,730
99,079
Northwest
346,069
14.9%
161,534
184,535
Source:	2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)
[1]	Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 million, small farms are those with annual revenue of $750,000 or less or feedlots with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less.

Employees, Pesticide Handlers

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

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

Table 3.3-5.  WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers.
Region
                                   Handlers
                                  WPS farms 1
                                   Handlers
                          CPHEs 2, multiple employees
                                   Handlers
                                    CPHEs,
                                 few employees
                                   Handlers
                                    CPHEs,
                                 self-employed
South
36,924
2,961
2,296
765
California
15,365
1,232
2,623
874
Southwest
7,930
636
1,656
552
Subtropical
6,195
497
299
100
Midwest
53,776
4,312
20,889
6,963
Northeast
25,525
2,047
8,465
2,822
Ohio Valley
57,245
4,591
6,009
2,003
Texas/Mountain West
30,481
2,444
2,223
741
Northwest
14,373
1,153
7,782
2,594
U.S.
247,815
19,873
52,242
17,414
Source:	NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates.
[1]	Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS establishment and one handler per large-small WPS establishment, not including the employer.  Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category.
[2]	Number of handlers includes employer.  Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all farms.
[3]	Number of handlers includes employer.  Distribution across regions follows number of state commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production.

Employees, Wages

Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2007c).  The number of handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (17,080 in total) is estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45-2091(Agricultural Equipment Operators) or 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation) that work for a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production).  Regional numbers are estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1.

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

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

Future time periods

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

PVRCrX=t=110acostr,aXtxNat(1+ρ)t-1

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

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

Nat=Na0∙(1+ga)t-1

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

PVRCrX=acostr,aX∙Na0∙t=110(1+ga)t-1(1+ρ)t-1

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

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

Table 3.3-6  Multipliers for calculating NPV.
Actor
                                      ga
                                    r = 3%
                                    r = 7%
WPS Farms
- 0.47%
8.61
7.38
Farm Handlers
- 0.47%
8.61
7.38
Farm Workers
- 2.14%
8.03
6.91
CPHEs
4.27%
10.57
8.93
CPHE handlers
0.17%
8.85
7.57
Commercial Applicators
3.06%
10.03
8.50
Discount alone
0%
8.79
7.52
Source:  EPA calculations.

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

For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistic's National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation).  Handler numbers are growing at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent discount rate.

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

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

3.3.3	Training

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

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

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

Requirement:  Immediate Training of Workers

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

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

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

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

costr,i,FrmBt=jwj∙Hr,i,Frm,jBt∙Probt(j|i)

where j, in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training.  There are four types of trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different wage rate.  Table 3.3-7 presents this estimation.  The four groups of trainers are:  (1) trainers of handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent of trainings.  Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007a).  The wages in Table 3.3-7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2.  The wage for handler trainers is based on NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scientist).  Handler wages are as explained in Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2.  The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA's discussions with trainers, extension agents, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a training.  Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes.

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

Table 3.3-7.  Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                    Hr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Training by handler trainer
                                   $37.87/hr
                                    30 min
0.140
$ 2.66
Training by Train-the-Trainer
                                   $37.87/hr
                                    30 min
0.100
$ 1.90
Training by certified applicator
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    30 min
0.750
$10.63
Training by handler
                                   $20.83/hr
                                    30 min
0.010
$ 0.10
costr,i,a[B]

$15.29
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide application is needed.  The probability of conducting a training is therefore weighted by the likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1 percent.  Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11.79.

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

Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 percent of the agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers.  While this underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and examines the impact of this bias in a later sensitivity analysis.

This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year.  Current standards require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning workforce will need to take the full training in any given year.  According to the NAWS (DoL, 2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more than five years.  Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the voluntary training verification cards provided in some states are not well accepted by employers as sufficient proof of training.  In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training even though they are within the five-year period because they don't remember when they last took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously.  In the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the full training for one reason or another.  Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training.  Note that some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 2001-2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005).  EPA does not account for any additional costs associated with the worker's time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of the proposals and alternatives.

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

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

Table 3.3-8 presents the per-worker cost of training under current requirements, including the per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings.  An abbreviated training is assumed to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average.  As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only.  We further assume that 25 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days.  Together, this suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each year.  Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2.

Table 3.3-8.  Per-Worker Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                    Hr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                   Prob(j|i)
                                     cost
Full Training Session
                                   $13.43/hr
                                    30 min
0.489
$ 3.28
Abbreviated Training Session
                                   $13.43/hr
                                     3 min
0.053
$ 0.04
Trainer for Abbreviated  Session
                                   $28.21/hr
                                     3 min
0.053
$ 0.08
costr,a[B]

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

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

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

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

Table 3.3-9.  Per-Establishment Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                    Hr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                    Prob(j)
                                     cost
Training by handler trainer
                                   $37.87/hr
                                    30 min
0.210
$ 3.98
Training by Train-the-Trainer
                                   $37.87/hr
                                    30 min
0.150
$ 2.84
Training by certified applicator
                                   $28.21/hr
                                    30 min
1.125
$15.87
Training by handler
                                   $20.83/hr
                                    30 min
0.015
$ 0.16
costr,a[P]

$22.85
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application.  Expected compliance cost would be $17.62.

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

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

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

Table 3.3-10.  Per-Worker Costs for TRAIN-01.
Action/Material (j)
                                  wage/price
                                      wj
                              unit time/quantity
                                    Hr,i,j
                               annual frequency
                                    Prob(j)
                                     cost
                                  costr,a[P]t
Worker Training (Year 1)
                                   $13.43/hr
                                    30 min
0.508
$ 3.41
Worker Training (future)
                                   $13.43/hr
                                    30 min
0.496
$ 3.33
Source:  EPA estimation.  See text for data sources.

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

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

RCr,iXt=acostr,aXtxNa,it

Table 3.3-11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3-2 and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4.  Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $13.9 million per year.  Establishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year.  Costs are for the first year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of actors is anticipated to decline.  Under the alternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million.

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

                                   WPS Farms
                                  WPS Workers
                            Regional Cost, Baseline
                                    RC[B] i
                                   ($1,000)
costr,i,,a[B]
                                    $15.23
                                    $ 3.40

Region
                              Number of WPS Farms
                                    Ni frm
                             Number of WPS Workers
                                    Ni wrkr

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

Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements.  In the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million.  Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9.0 million while worker-level cost rise only slightly over the baseline.  In future years, EPA estimates the worker-level will decline slightly because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training.  The expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million.

Overall, however, the requirement would reduce the flexibility of agricultural establishments to hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees.  This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in per-establishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9.

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

                                   WPS Farms
                                  WPS Workers
                           Regional Cost, Potential
                                   RC[P] est
                                   ($1,000)
costr,a[P]
                                    $22.84
                                    $ 3.41

Region
                              Number of WPS Farms
                                    Ni est
                             Number of WPS Workers
                                    Ni wrkr

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

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

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

That is,
PVNCrP=acostr,aX∙Na0∙t=110(1+ga)t-1(1+r)t-1

becomes, for the worker cost at the national level,

       PV(NCr,wrkr[P]) = $7.917 million + $3.33∙(2,322,610)∙(8.03-1)

Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added together.  Estimates are presented in Table 3.3-12.

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

PVRICr,i=PVRCr,iP-PVRCr,iB

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

Table 3.3-13  Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.
Region
                                 PV(RC[P]frm)
                                 PV(RC[P]wrkr)
                                 PV(RC[B]frm)
                                 PV(RC[B]wrkr)
                                    PV(RIC)

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
South
11,571
7,349
7,746
7,471
3,704
California
4,815
10,588
3,223
10,763
1,417
Plains
2,485
2,118
1,664
2,153
787
Subtropical
1,941
2,990
1,300
3,039
592
Midwest
16,851
8,034
11,281
8,167
5,438
Northeast
7,999
7,474
5,355
7,597
2,521
Ohio Valley
17,938
9,467
12,009
9,623
5,774
Texas/Mountain West
9,552
4,983
6,394
5,065
3,075
Northwest
4,504
9,280
3,015
9,433
1,336
US
77,656
62,283
51,986
63,309
24,643
Source:	EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent discount rate.  Regional costs are estimated to range from $67,000 per year in the Subtropical region to $657,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley.

Table 3.3-14.  Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.
Region
                                   PV(RC[P])
                                   PV(RC[B])
                                    PV(RIC)
                                Annualized RIC

                                     $1000
                                     $1000
South
18,920
15,216
3,704
422
California
15,403
13,986
1,417
161
Plains
4,603
3,816
787
90
Subtropical
4,931
4,339
592
67
Midwest
24,886
19,448
5,438
619
Northeast
15,472
12,952
2,521
287
Ohio Valley
27,405
21,632
5,774
657
Texas/Mountain West
14,534
11,459
3,075
350
Northwest
13,784
12,448
1,336
152
US
139,939
115,296
24,643
2,805
Source:	EPA estimates.  Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 6.  Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.
The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and potential costs.  Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3-14.  The incremental cost of the potential requirement is estimated to be $24.6 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate.  This corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an average of $7.10 per year per WPS farm.  The per-farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the worker for the time spent in training.  However, many temporary workers employed to harvest fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick.  For those workers, the time spent in training may represent forgone wages.

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

At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential requirement.  That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers attending training would increase from the baseline.  Under this scenario, the incremental cost of this potential requirement is estimated to be $5.1 million per year or $12.80 per WPS farm.

Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate
As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in lieu of the 16 percent rate used above.  A higher rate means more new workers who must receive abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained.  The former is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of training in the baseline.  With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using of a 16 percent new hire rate.  Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias.

Other Training Requirements

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

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

Table 3.3-15.  Present Value of National Costs, Potential Training Requirements 1.
Potential Requirement
                                   PV(NC[P])
                                   PV(NC[B])
                                    PV(NIC)
                                Annualized NIC

                                   ($1,000)
                                   ($1,000)
01 Immediate Training
139,939
115,296
24,643
2,805
02  Immediate Training with Exceptions
135,225
115,296
19,929
2,268
03 Annual Worker Training
192,127
115,296
76,831
8,745
04 Biennial Worker Training
143,345
115,296
28,049
3,192
05 Annual Worker Training, Small Farm Exception
181,320
115,296
66,024
7,515
06 Expand Worker Training Content 2
160,164
122,092
38,072
4,333
07 Expand Worker Training Content (crop sheet variant)2
168,813
122,092
46,721
5,318
08 Increase Worker Trainer Standards
125,060
115,296
9,764
1,111
09 Increase Worker Trainer Standards, Train-the-Trainer variant
125,060
115,296
9,764
1,111
10 Keep Worker Training Records -2yr
14,269
0
14,269
1,624
11 Keep Worker Training Records -5yr
17,144
0
17,144
1,951
12 Annual Handler Training 3
56,579
26,045
30,534
3,475
13 Biennial Handler Training 3
39,385
24,979
14,406
1,640
14 Expand Handler Training Content 3
30,284
24,524
5,761
656
15 Expand Handler Training Content (crop sheet variant)[3]
31,513
24,524
6,989
795
16 Keep Handler Training Records- 2yr 4
1,550
123
1,427
162
17 Keep Handler Training Records- 5yr 4
2,658
123
2,536
289
18 Eliminate Training Verification Cards
0
4,985
-4,985
-567
19 Require Training Verification Cards
10,618
4,985
5,633
641
20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training
3,395
4,985
-1,590
-181
Source:  EPA estimates.
[1]	Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.
[2]	California requires additional worker training content, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the potential requirement.
[3]	California requires additional content and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the regional baseline for other handler requirements, costs are constrained to be equal to the potential regulatory costs.

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

TRAIN-03, 04, and 05.  Frequency of worker training.  Under current requirements, all workers must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area.  EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of worker training to every year (TRAIN-03).  EPA also considered requiring training every other year (TRAIN-04) and providing WPS farms with fewer than ten employees with an exception from annual training requirement under certain circumstances.

Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provides the training, and at the worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings.  Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings.  The primary reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training each year.  Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental costs to the agricultural sector of about $8.7 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20 per establishment.  Biennial worker training (TRAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment.

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

Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule.  The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than ten workers that had no new employees and were using the same pesticide as in previous years (TRAIN-05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e., annual sales less than $750,000, but based on data from the Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA estimates almost 95 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers.  In fact, almost 60 percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers.  It is not clear how many of these farms would meet the latter two criteria.  EPA estimates that, if five percent of small farms could take advantage of the exception (i.e., had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in previous years), this option would cost about $7.5 million per year across all farms, about $1.2 million less than annual training without exceptions.  The incremental cost is estimated to be $12.40 per year, on average, for small farms.  In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training is estimated to be $15.40 per year, on average, for small farms.  If ten percent of small farms met the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $10.20 per year, on average.  Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance with the criteria for exception.

TRAIN-06 and 07.  Content of worker training.  Current requirements specify the content of trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover.  The expanded content that would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation of the hazard information found in the SDS.  Together, the expanded content is expected to add another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06).  This averages out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm.  The alternative would include an explanation of the hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes.  The alternative is expected to cost about $5.3 million per year or an average of $13.50 per WPS farm.  Both estimates assume a two-year delay in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRAIN-12 and 13.  Frequency of handler training.  Current requirements stipulate that handler training is valid for five years.  EPA considered increasing the frequency of training to every year under TRAIN-12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN-13 for handlers.  Training costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings.  As with worker training, some establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase in the frequency of trainings, but the primary reason that the regulatory cost increases is that more handlers would receive training each year.

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

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

California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is adjusted accordingly.  As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the federal standards.  In the case of the potential requirement requiring biennial training, the cost of California baseline is constrained to be that under biennial training to account for the fact that federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments.

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

TRAIN-14 and 15.  Content of handler training.  Current requirements specify the content of handler trainings and EPA estimates that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of commercially available video materials.  The expanded content under the potential requirements could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the training covers hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04).  This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training each year.  Average handler training costs under TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by $3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year respectively.  These requirements would not take effect for two years while the new training materials are developed.  As noted above, we are likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS farms.

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

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

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

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