ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
          PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS
                                 RIN 2070-AJ22
                         Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184

                                  Prepared by

                   BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION
                         OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
                             Washington, DC  20460

Table of Contents

Executive Summary	1
Chapter 1.  Introduction	7
1.1	Background	7
1.2	Problem Statement	8
1.2.1 	Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure	9
1.2.2 	Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure	12
1.2.3	Market Failure	13
1.3	Affected Communities	15
1.3.1	Agricultural Employees	15
1.3.2	 Regulated Entities	16
1.4	Overview of Proposed Regulation	17
1.4.1	Need for Federal Regulation	18
1.4.2	Statutory Authority	19
Chapter 2.  Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS	20
2.1	Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety	21
2.1.1	Non-regulatory Approaches	21
2.1.2	Regulatory Approaches	22
2.2	Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers	23
2.2.1	Pesticide Safety Training Options	23
2.2.2	Hazard Communication Options	32
2.2.3	Notification Options	35
2.3	Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers	43
2.3.1	Minimum Age Options	43
2.3.2	Options for Entry Restrictions	44
2.3.3	Options for Personal Protective Equipment	48
2.4	Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure	50
2.4.1	Decontamination Supply Options	50
2.4.2	Options for Emergency Response	52
Chapter 3.  Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options	55
3.1	Overview	55
3.2.	Regional Groupings	56
3.3	Cost of Potential Requirements	58
3.3.1	General Methodology	58
3.3.2	General Data	61
3.3.3	Training	69
3.3.4	Hazard Communication	85
3.3.5	Notification	90
3.3.5	Age	97
3.3.6	Entry	101
3.3.7	Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)	106
3.3.8	Decontamination Supplies	111
3.3.9	Emergency Response	113
Chapter 4.  Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements	115
4.1	Training Options	116
4.1.1	TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02:  Immediate worker training	116
4.1.2	TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13:  Frequency of worker and handler training	117
4.1.3	TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training	118
4.1.4	TRAIN-08 vs 09:  Increase worker trainer competency standards	118
4.1.5	TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17:  Record keeping	119
4.1.6	TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19:  Training verification	119
4.2 	Hazard Communication Options	120
4.2.1	HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information	120
4.2.2	HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04:  Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication Materials	121
4.2.3 	HAZCOM-05 vs 06:  Recordkeeping and Retention	121
4.2.4	HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets	122
4.3	Notification Options	122
4.3.1	NOTIFY-01 vs 02:  Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production	122
4.3.2	NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing  -  Enclosed Space Production	123
4.3.3	NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification	123
4.3.4	NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs	123
4.3.4	NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign	124
4.3.6	NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks	124
4.3.7	NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks	124
4.3.8	NOTIFY-14:  Revise safety display	125
4.3.9	NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17:  Number and location of safety displays	125
4.3.10	NOTIFY-18:  Notification by commercial applicators	126
4.4	Age Requirement Options	126
4.4.1	AGE-01 vs 02:  Minimum age for early entry activities	126
4.4.2	AGE-03 vs AGE-04:  Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides	127
4.5 	Entry Restriction Options	127
4.5.1	ENTRY-01 and 02:  Entry restricted areas	127
4.5.2	ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05:  Duration of Early Entry Activities	128
4.5.3	ENTRY-06 vs 07:  Cholinesterase Inhibition	129
4.6 	PPE Options	129
4.6.1	PPE-01:  Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE	129
4.6.2	PPE-02 and PPE-03:  Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs	130
4.6.3	PPE-04:  Standards for closed system exceptions	130
4.6.4	PPE-05:  Render contaminated PPE unwearable	131
4.7 	Decontamination Supply Options	131
4.7.1	SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02:  Decontamination supplies for workers	131
4.7.2	SUPPLY-03 vs 04:  Decontamination supplies for handlers	132
4.7.3	SUPPLY-05 vs 06:  Emergency eye flushing	133
4.8 	Emergency Assistance Options	133
Chapter 5.  Costs of Proposed Rule	135
5.1	General Methodology	137
5.2	Cost Estimation	141
5.2.1	Training Component	141
5.2.2	Hazard Communication and Notification Components	151
5.2.3	Protect Component:  Age, Entry, and PPE	154
5.2.4	Mitigate Component:  Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance	156
5.2.5	Total Cost of Proposed Rule	158
5.3	Impact on Jobs and Employment	161
5.4	Small Business Impacts	162
5.4.1	Industry Profile	163
5.4.2	Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost	165
Chapter 6.  Benefits of Proposed Rule	167
6.1.	Which Benefits Can Be Quantified	168
6.2.	Who is at Risk?	169
6.2.1.	Workers & Handlers in Agriculture	169
6.2.2.	Children and families	169
6.3.	What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families	172
6.3.1.	Acute Exposures and Effects	172
6.3.2.	Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families	173
6.4.	Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents	177
6.5.	Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents	177
6.5.1.	Methodology and Data	178
6.5.2.	Underreporting of worker/handler incidents	179
6.5.3.	Pesticide Incidents Avoided	184
6.5.4.	Value of Incidents Avoided	187
6.6.	What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers	198
6.6.1.	Cancer Risks	201
6.6.2.	Non-Cancer Health Effects	204
6.6.3.	Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks	206
6.7.	Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks	206
6.8.	Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks	207
6.8.1.	Background	207
6.8.2.	Method	209
6.8.3.	Data	211
6.8.4.	Break-Even Estimation	215
6.8.5.	Break-Even Conclusions	219
Chapter 7.  Paperwork Burden	220
Accounting Statement	221
References	223

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

                               Executive Summary

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers.  This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.  The document also discusses the costs and benefits of alternative options considered by EPA in the development of the proposal.

Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherently risky.  Between 2000 and 2009, an average of 2,170 occupational pesticide incidents was reported annually to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, of which over 1,200 occurred on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS.  The true number of occupational accidents is likely to be significantly more due to lack of reporting.  Acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects such as headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness.  In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death.  Occupational incidents are probably indicative of a larger number of cases where pesticide safety practices are not fully followed resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, and possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and risk management.  Even such minor errors are likely to lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, which is associated with long-term health issues that are potentially severe, including neurological diseases such as Parkinson's and several forms of cancer.

Market Failure

Two kinds of `market' failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures:  asymmetric information and externalities.  The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it.  The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions; this may result in unintended or undesirable amounts or kinds of use for a given pesticide that result in negative consequences for society and/or the environment.  If the market fails to provide incentives to develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure.

In conjunction with various non-regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on agricultural establishment.  Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is proposing a set of requirements that, in combination, are expected to achieve substantial benefits at minimum cost.

Costs and Benefits

EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $62.1 and $72.9 million annually, using a three percent discount rate.  Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $61.2 and $73.6 million per year.   The majority of the costs, $59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United States.  The approximately 2,800 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost between $2.4 and $2.5 million per year.  Family farms, i.e., not hiring labor, that use pesticides may collectively bear costs of about $100,000 per year.  Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per year per farm worker.  Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to pesticides, will accrue to a broader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in terms of avoided costs associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases associated with occupational pesticide exposure.

Estimates of the total incremental costs are considered an upper bound, primarily because of the assumption that all requirements are applicable to all farms and farmworkers even though the WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor.  Much of U.S. agricultural labor is mechanized.  EPA includes 153,000 farms primarily engaged in livestock operations in this analysis.  Associated crop production is likely to include forage crops or field crops like grain and oilseeds that are highly mechanized.  Since they do not involve hand labor activities, employers and employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS.  Only handler requirements would apply.  If the livestock operations are responsible only for handler requirements, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $59.2 million per year.

Costs

Key conclusions from the cost analysis are presented in Table 1.  Most of the impacts of the revisions to the WPS will be felt by the 395,000 U.S. farms that hire labor.  The cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed.  EPA estimates that large farms, defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average about 20 employees, will incur costs of $340 to $400 per year, on average, using a 3% discount rate.  Smaller operations that average two to three workers are estimated to incur costs between $130 and $150 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenue.  EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule.  Around 3,000 family farms may be impacted by the proposed standards for closed mixing and loading systems with annualized costs of less than $60 per year, although this figure masks the fact that some farms may choose to invest in new equipment.  Commercial pesticide handling establishments may incur costs of $170 to $190 per year.

Table 1.  Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

                              Farms Hiring Labor
                                 Family Farms
                 Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments
Number Impacted
                                    395,000
                                     3,200
                                     2,800
Annualized Cost
                            $59.6  -  70.4 million
                                   $100,000
                             $2.4  -  2.5 million
Per-Establishment
                             Large farms $350-410
                             Small farms $130-150
                                      $35
                                   $170-190
Small Business Impacts
No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    *  The rule will affect over 300,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are contracted to apply pesticides.
    *  Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for the average small entity.
Impact on Jobs
The rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment.
   *  The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $5/year.
   *  The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to increase by $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost of a part-time employee.

The marginal increase in cost per field worker is estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on employment.  The marginal increase in cost per pesticide handler employed on a farm is estimated to be less than $60 per year, which represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact on job availability.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed rule accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers and, indirectly to their families.  For workers and handlers, the revised rule is expected to substantially reduce the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to pesticides, and provide them with information and tools to reduce the transport of pesticide residues to their homes.  Self-employed pesticide handlers, including members of farm families who apply pesticides, will also benefit from reductions in pesticide exposures.

It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to such a wide range of pesticides with different toxicities and risks.  However, the proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness.

Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents

Given reported cases, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide incidents where the WPS applies would have been prevented by the rule.  The value of avoided medical and productivity losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million annually, based on the number of reported cases.  However, this estimate is biased downward by an unknown, but potentially significant degree.  First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database.  The effect of underreporting can be significant.  If we assume only 20 - 25% of poisonings are reported and adjust the benefits to account for this level of under-reporting, then the low-end estimate for the benefits of the rule would be about $5 million and the high-end estimate would be about $14 million/year.  Second, our approach only measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher.  These benefits are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.  Acute Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard
Category
                                  Description
                                   Comments
Avoided acute pesticide incidents
    *  $5  -  14 million/year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide incidents.
    *  $1.2  -  2.8 million/year without adjustment.
    *  Cost of illness and reduced productivity.
    *  Accounts for underreporting.
Qualitative Benefits
   *  Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity.
   *  Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

The weight of evidence suggests that a reduction in pesticide exposure through the proposed rule requirements will result in long term health benefits to the 2.3 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers.  These benefits are expected to accrue through lower expenditure on healthcare due to a reduced burden of chronic illness in the population.  EPA also anticipates there will be benefits such as a healthier society and improved quality of life for agricultural workers, pesticide handlers and their families through this rule. However, neither the benefits of reduced chronic disease burden due to reduced pesticide exposure nor the intangible benefit of improved quality of life can be quantified at this time.

The peer-reviewed literature contains well-documented and biologically plausible statistical associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects.  For example, epidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoietic tumors, lung and prostate cancers as well as neurological effects such as Parkinson's disease, among others.  However, the current state of scientific research concerning the possible association between pesticide exposure and these chronic diseases is such that it would be premature at this time to conclude that there is a causal link between pesticide exposures and the chronic disease outcomes, or if there is a causal link, the data are insufficient to establish a dose-response relationship.  As a consequence, it is not possible to directly quantify all of the benefits expected to result from reducing agricultural pesticide exposures expected.  However, the totality of reported epidemiological findings suggests that the long term health of agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule. Therefore, EPA has estimated the minimum number of cases of chronic disease outcomes which, if avoided, would equal the total cost of the rule (i.e., the "break-even" analysis).

The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases.  These illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family members or health care professionals. Using the break-even analysis described in Section 6.8., if the proposed rule prevents only a very small number of chronic illnesses, it could have very substantial benefits.  Based upon the best available information, this analysis indicates that a reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that would be required to ensure the totality of benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS revisions.  Including only six diseases in the break-even analysis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of just those chronic diseases shown in Table 3 by 0.8 percent within the farmworker community is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that would be sufficient to generate total benefits equal to the cost of the rule, given estimates of willingness to pay to avoid representative diseases.  In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides show higher incidence rates of certain chronic diseases than the general population with little or no exposure to pesticides.  Thus, the slight decrease in total incidence rates is a plausible outcome of the proposed revisions to the WPS.

Table 3.  Chronic Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard
                                   Category
                                  Description
                                    Comment
Qualitative benefits  from reduced effects of chronic pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families
A range of illnesses are associated with chronic pesticide exposure, including
*   Non-Hodgkins lymphoma
*   Prostate Cancer
*   Parkinson's Disease
*   Lung Cancer
*   Chronic Bronchitis
*   Asthma

Break-even analysis for only these illnesses shows that, if the proposed rule changes prevent  a relatively small number of cases, then the total benefits of the rule  would outweigh the costs.

Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers to transport pesticide residues home to their families.  Thus, the proposed requirements are expected to reduce children's exposure to pesticides.  The benefits of reduced exposure to children are also impossible to quantify, but they may be large.  At every lifestage, including the fetal stage, reducing exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long-term health.  There are benefits to parents and caregivers as well, because healthier families, means fewer missed workdays, and a better quality of life.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Chapter 1.  Introduction

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers.  The proposed revisions are expected to reduce the risks to workers and handlers from occupational pesticide exposure, and protect farm worker children and other family members from take-home pesticide exposure. The proposed changes represent revisions to the worker protection rule that was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992.

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS as well as for alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal.  This section provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, describes the reasons for EPA's proposal and the statutory authority for the rule, and identifies entities that may be affected by the rule.  Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in developing this proposal and discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options.  Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the regulatory options.  Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements.  Chapters 5 and 6 then examine the proposed requirements as a single unit.  Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposal, taking into account any interactions between the proposed requirements.  The ultimate outcome of the rule, in terms avoided adverse health effects resulting from reduced accidental and chronic exposures to pesticides, which will accrue primarily to agricultural employees and their families, are described in Chapter 6.

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.  The remaining regulatory requirements and a full description of the regulatory options EPA is considering in this proposal are addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of this rule.  This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in preparing an analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501-21).

1.1	Background

The EPA's pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary regulations.  The Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, requires applicators to meet certain competency requirements before they can purchase, use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticide products.  EPA is currently revising the rules governing certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking.  The Worker Protection Standard regulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide handler employers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers when pesticides are used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses.  The WPS regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on agricultural establishment.  Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency's pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, agricultural employees, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as children.  This economic analysis focuses on the WPS rule.

The WPS rule is directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees, which, throughout this document, we refer as `handlers' and as `workers.'  Handlers are those employees who handle agricultural pesticides (mixing, loading, applying pesticides, and performing other activities linked to pesticide application).  These employees may be directly exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non-target organisms.  In principle, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they work and have access to label information that explains precautions and provides directions for use.  Workers are employees who perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests.  Workers are potentially exposed to pesticides through contact with treated plants, residues left on other surfaces, or through the air or water on the farm or other operation.  On their own, workers may have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be exposed or even if they are exposed.

Changes to WPS will largely impact two types of employers who are responsible for providing required protections to their employees:  agricultural owners/employers, (i.e., farm owners, greenhouses, nurseries and forest planting), and employers on commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs).  Some revisions may also pertain to other commercial agricultural services, including private crop advisors, but impacts appear to be negligible.

The benefits of the proposed rule accrue primarily to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers, and their families.  The proposed changes to the rule will provide more information about the potential risks of pesticide exposure and ways farmworkers and handlers can minimize those exposures.

1.2	Problem Statement

EPA imposes requirements on the use of pesticides with the intent to avert unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment.  These requirements include current worker protection standards and pesticide-specific use restrictions found on the product label.  However, despite these safeguards, occupational pesticide poisonings still occur.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) compile a set of indicators to monitor occupational health.  Indicator 11 tracks acute work-related pesticide poisonings reported to poison control centers.  From 2000 to 2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, with an average number of 2,465 cases reported per year (CSTE, 2011).  Reports include all occupational cases, not only those where WPS is applicable.  An EPA review of another dataset on occupational exposures (SENSOR-Pesticides, described in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates that about 57 percent of reported occupational cases occurred on establishments where WPS requirements apply.  If that rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually would be reported from WPS establishments.   Although the number of cases was generally trending down over this period, there remain a substantial number of incidents.  Many of these poisonings are avoidable and it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of exposures when they occur.  Moreover, incidents are likely to reflect a larger number of cases where employers or employees fail to follow label instruction or make mistakes in applications, much like traffic accidents at intersections likely reflect the common practice of rolling through stop signs.  But while rolling through a stop sign increases the probability of an accident, lax pesticide safety practices result in higher levels of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, and possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearly defined incident.  These minor errors are also likely to lead to more chronic exposure to pesticides.

1.2.1 	Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

Use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky.  Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, and workers and handlers can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al., 2010).  Some exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms.  The acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects.  Exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997).  Some pesticides can cause in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999).  In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death.  These are just a few of the many diverse symptoms that can be caused by pesticide exposure; Reigart and Roberts (1999) list almost 100 different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure.

While illnesses resulting from pesticide exposures to workers and handlers are underreported (see the discussion in Section 6.5.1), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers.  Calvert, et al. (2008), for example, looked at reported pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005.  Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)).  Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians.  Das et al. found that about half of all pesticide related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural workers.  Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact.

Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees

The families of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are also exposed to pesticides, and several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections to children, both those living in the homes of workers and handlers, as well as those adolescents working on farms.

Research has shown that agricultural workers' perceptions about pesticide safety can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home.  Snipes et al., (2009) conducted interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions or practices that might lead to takehome exposure that could be changed through training.  In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and farmworkers were delayed washing their hands and bodies immediately after work.  Quandt et al. (1998) found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target and that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al., 2007).  In reality, other exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working.  Prenatal exposures may be particularly important for long-term development effects in children.  Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer windows of opportunity for chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. At various development stages, humans metabolize chemicals differently, such that chemical exposures have more or less effect at different ages.

Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be exposed to multiple pesticides.  Arcury et al. (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a urine sample.  The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time.  Bradman et al. (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different pesticides in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20.  Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes.  They found significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in farm households.  The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the worker's changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported home on farmer's clothing and shoes.  There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in home vehicles for farm families.   In a literature review of the takehome exposure pathway, Vida et al. (2007), reported results that indicate the takehome exposure is an important source of exposure for children.  Studies cited by Vida et al. (2007) consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the agricultural households and that levels of OP residues vary by agricultural activity.  The highest levels of azinphos-methyl, for example were associated with thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, Coronado et al., 2006).  Curl et al., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which suggest the takehome pathway is the source for the residues.  Exposure studies on organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, suggest that the takehome pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005, Bradman 2007, Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

Adolescent workers and handlers

Adolescents working on farms or as handlers can be exposed to pesticides via the same pathways as adult workers and handlers, but they may face higher levels of exposure and greater risks.

There is evidence that adolescents do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do that make exposure to pesticides more likely.  Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large.  For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008).  In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998).  The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005).  The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010).

Salazar et al. (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed among the group relating to individual susceptibility, and responses indicated a somewhat cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al., 2004).

According to Calvert et al.(2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity (Calvert et al., 2003).  The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults.    In economic terms, adolescents behave as if they have extremely high discount rates, i.e., very little beyond the immediate moment matters.

Children and adolescents are still going through important developmental changes, and pesticide exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems.  Although adolescents are more fully developed than younger children, there are still important development processes continuing.  In particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination (important physiological process that reduce the excess neuron connections in the brain and enclosing individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase the efficiency of information processing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005).  These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 2000).  In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves over a full lifetime.

1.2.2 	Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

In addition to the effects of acute exposure mentioned above, workers and handlers face risks from chronic exposure to pesticides, as well.  Although the children and families may suffer illness from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for this group is exposure to low levels of pesticides over a longer period of time, either from the agricultural environment or in the home, where pesticides have been transported on the clothes of workers and handlers.  There are a broad range of illnesses with a relationship to this type of chronic exposure.

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to pregnant women may affect children.   Pre-natal exposure to pregnant women may have particularly important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother and future childhood leukemia.  As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis of developmental toxicity (i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss).  These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy.

While only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer-review bodies, there is a wide literature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies.   The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only identified two classes of pesticides to be carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as possible human carcinogens.   However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer.

Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele et al., 2011, Wigle et al., 2009, Turner et al., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al., 2013).

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations.  They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers.  It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009).

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 2009 for pancreatic cancer).  Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009).

1.2.3	Market Failure

Two kinds of `market' failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures:  asymmetric information and externalities.  The former implies that full information about the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it.  The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, there may be a socially undesirable amount or kind of use.  If the market fails to provide incentives to develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure.  This intervention must adapt to changes in industry and, especially, to the advancements of scientific knowledge about the risks of pesticide exposure.

Asymmetric Information

Asymmetric information may be the most critical problem leading to avoidable pesticide exposure.  Handlers working directly with pesticides and agricultural workers on farms where pesticides are used may not have complete information about the occupational risks they face or the potential consequences to their families if pesticide residues are transported to the home.  Asymmetric information arises in two ways.

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the information if not provided by the employer.  Many who are employed in agriculture, for example, are not native English speakers; an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees do not speak English (US Department of Labor, 2005).  Many are migrant laborers who could lack access to sources of information, such as familiar extension agents, because they are frequently away from home, but many workers may not have access, especially internet access, to convenient, reliable information (US Department of Labor, 2005).  These barriers result in high search costs that can deter agricultural workers and handlers from obtaining information on their own.  Finally, information regarding pesticides and pesticide use may not be available to the employee in the time frame that is required to take appropriate action.

Second, there may not be incentives for workers and handlers to seek out information about pesticides.  Symptoms of pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, or other factors, especially for workers who may not even be aware that they have been in contact with pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas.  Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and employees may not be motivated to learn more about the risks they face given more immediate job requirements.  These issues can result in workers and handlers with insufficient information to make informed choices about their safety.

Externalities

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pesticide exposure is that the party making the application decision does not bear all of the negative effects of a pesticide application, including the health effects on others.  This is a classic externality that can result in a divergence between the social and private costs of using a pesticide.

An externality of this type could imply that there are fewer protections for workers and handlers than would be socially desirable.  Employers may lack the incentive to seek out or act on the information they have on the negative consequences of pesticides or the possible measures that can be taken to avoid negative outcomes.  This may be particularly true when the adverse effects are not readily observable, but occur due to chronic exposure.  Moreover, there are numerous pesticides, many with complex effects on human and environmental systems, which can make it costly for employers to obtain information for their employees.  Similarly, adequate protections may require specialized knowledge, e.g., toxicology, that employers simply do not have.

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections

Another concern is the presence of institutional constraints.  EPA last revised the WPS requirements in 1992.  Some existing requirements have proven to be vague or open to differing interpretations leading to regulatory uncertainty.  Moreover, society's understanding of exposure and risk has evolved and regulatory requirements are most useful when they reflect current knowledge.

Environmental Justice Issues

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

   * Because of their occupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to pesticides than the general public, and may be subject to multiple exposures of different pesticides over the course of their working life.

   * Language barriers and challenges for this workforce make it difficult for workers and handlers to participate in making decisions about the risks they face as they perform their jobs.

   * Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non-agricultural workers.  Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure, because their body systems are still developing.  Poverty, poor nutrition and lack of access to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure.

   * The cumulative effects of occupational pesticide exposure can have long term impacts on the health of worker and handler communities.  See Section 1.2.2.  These potential effects are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6.

According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), in 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005), 75 percent of farmworkers were born in Mexico. Twenty three percent were born in the U.S., with a small percentage born in other countries.  Eighty one percent of the community speaks Spanish as a native language, with a growing percentage speaking other languages such as Creole, or Mixteco.  Forty-four percent of workers could not speak English "at all" and 53 percent could not read English "at all," and many workers have received minimal formal education.  The NAWS reports that, in 2001-2002, most foreign-born workers completed the sixth grade, whereas most US-born workers completed the eleventh grade.  Forty three percent traveled at least 75 miles in the previous year to find an agricultural job, and are therefore defined as migrant, posing challenges for effective outreach.  Twenty one percent live in housing provided by their employer, with 58 percent living in housing rented from someone else.    The NAWS (DoL, 2005) found that crop workers' average annual income was between $10,000 and $12,499, with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499.  Thirty percent of surveyed workers had family incomes below the poverty level.

1.3	Affected Communities

The primary entities that will be impacted by the proposed changes to the WPS are agricultural employees and their families, agricultural establishments (which include farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural plants and hire workers or handlers, and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs).  Other affected entities include family farms that use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop advisory services.  Under the proposed revisions, state agencies are expected to incur only minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations.

1.3.1	Agricultural Employees

WPS offers protections to as many as 2.3 million agricultural employees (NASS, 2008b).  The current rule is intended to protect workers and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses from pesticide exposure.  WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most workers in forestry would generally not be at substantially more risk than the general public due to pesticide use patterns in forestry.

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year.  According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), over 300,000 farms employing over 2.0 million workers used pesticides in 2007.  EPA estimates that within the farmworker population are almost 250,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load pesticides and assist with application as well as those who apply pesticides.  Over several years, however, it is likely that nearly all 395,000 agricultural establishments that hire labor will use pesticides, thus all agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of adverse health effects.  However, many farm workers are not engaged in hand labor activities and the potential for exposure is quite low.

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the proposed rule through provisions that would require agricultural employers to provide information to workers and handlers about risks from pesticides and ways they can minimize their exposure, to provide warnings about treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective equipment, and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural pesticides.  The costs of the proposed rule are not generally expected to fall directly on workers and handlers.

1.3.2	 Regulated Entities

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were over 2.2 million agricultural establishments in the United States.  Another 10,000 commercial establishments do business such as providing contract services for pest control (Census Bureau, 2006).  The WPS covers a subset of agricultural establishments involved in plant agriculture.  These include farms, livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations.  An agricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and employs any worker or handler.  The WPS also covers self-employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies pesticides.

For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish two types of establishments affected by the rule:  (1) farms, including livestock operations that produce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs).   Within each type, we further distinguish between those who are self-employed (e.g., the family farm) and those who employ others.  Farms that use pesticides and hire labor bear most of the cost of the proposed changes to the WPS.  The major sources of impact will be in additional labor cost to account for time spent in training and in giving and receiving information.

Agricultural Establishments

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States, of which over 1.5 million are involved in plant agriculture.  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 and determined that 788,582 agricultural establishments producing crops used pesticides in 2007.  Of those, 304,348 farms also hired labor, leaving 484,234 family farms that used pesticides in 2007.  Those family farms, however, are exempt from most provisions of the WPS.  Family farms benefit from the WPS because it provides several exceptions or alternatives to pesticide label requirements including permission to enter treated fields during the Restricted Entry Interval (REI) under certain conditions.  The WPS also sets standards for engineering controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for personal protective equipment (PPE).

The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily affect the establishments that use pesticides and hire labor such as the 304,348 farms identified in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).  However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers.  Thus, EPA uses the number of farms hiring labor, 394,658, as the likely universe of farms covered by WPS requirements (NASS, 2008b).  For convenience, throughout this document, we refer to the farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor as "WPS farms."  The use of all farms hiring labor may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic growers, however many organic producers also have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to WPS standards of safety.  The number of these farms actually using pesticides in any given year, as indicated by the 2007 Census, will be important for many of the requirements.

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

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

The number of commercial pesticide handling establishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Statistics (BLS, 2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms.  About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed under the NAICS code 115112 (Soil preparation, planting, and cultivating).  In order to determine the number of firms that would qualify as commercial pesticide handling establishments as defined by the WPS, EPA determined that only the 1,231 firms which reported hiring at least one employee with the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions: crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting) would be defined as CPHEs under WPS.  EPA also estimates that there are 1,562 aerial applicators covered by the WPS, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008).

EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial applicators certified for plant production, that there are nearly 87,000 self-employed handlers providing commercial services to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007).

1.4	Overview of Proposed Regulation

EPA is proposing requirements to address the problems arising from inadequate information and externalities, to clarify required actions, and to reflect current knowledge.  Chapter 2 discusses the proposed requirements, as well as alternative requirements, in more detail.  For this analysis, EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories.

Three categories primarily address the issue of incomplete information.  Training requirements are designed to provide general information to employees where an important aspect of the pesticide safety training is to provide workers and handlers with information about the risks of pesticides and steps they can take to minimize their exposure.  Hazard Communication and Notification requirements are designed to provide timely application-specific information.  These proposed requirements would mean that agricultural workers receive the information they need when they need it.

Three categories address the externality issue and provide protections to employees working with pesticides.  Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescents, whose developing systems may be more susceptible to pesticide effects.  Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential risks of exposure, especially the long-term effects, compared to adults.  Entry restrictions are designed to reduce the possible adverse effects on workers who are in proximity either in time or space to a pesticide application.  Requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) are intended to provide handlers with protection from pesticide exposure during handling tasks.

The final two categories revise regulations to provide greater clarity and to help employers adequately prepare for the possibility of exposure.  The proposed requirements for decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements.

1.4.1	Need for Federal Regulation

States and territories may establish local standards, provided the minimum federal standards are met.  For improved protections and efficiency, EPA concludes that the federal standards should be revised.

First, there are efficiency gains for state and local agencies responsible for implementing worker protection standards.  Many states rely on the federal standards because data on pesticide effects are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and the duplication of effort.  Thus, while states have the authority to issue their own regulations, they may lack the resources to individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise protection standards.

There are also potential efficiency gains for agricultural establishments when there is greater consistency in worker protection requirements across states.  Many workers migrate through the agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at different times.  If worker protection standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, workers may be confused about their rights and regulatory protections.  Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or supervisors who cross state boundaries may inadvertently be out of compliance if regulatory requirements are inconsistent.  Further, if different states imposed different requirements, workers who cross state boundaries may be confused about their rights and responsibilities.  Different notification requirements, in particular, that might present information in different ways, would be particularly confusing.

There may also be efficiency gains in establishing consistent training requirements.  Federal requirements for training standards can ease the burden of developing programs for individual entities.

1.4.2	Statutory Authority

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 established a framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136 et. seq.) broadened federal pesticide regulatory authority to make it "unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" (7 USC 136i(a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 USC 136l) and authorized the Administrator to provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 USC 136w(a)).  The new and revised provisions directed EPA to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides.

Chapter 2.  Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to improve the protections for agricultural workers, handlers and their families. The WPS establishes requirements to inform agricultural workers and handlers that they may encounter pesticides either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, loading and applying pesticides. Broadly speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and handlers about the pesticides they use or to which they come into contact, (2) protect workers and handlers from the adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the adverse effects of exposure.

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the WPS, as well as alternative options considered by EPA.  The discussion provides a general overview of each potential change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 170 provides the actual regulatory language.  Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not discussed.  The NPRM for the proposed rule presents additional detail on the proposed changes and the alternatives considered, including some additional alternatives not considered here that were rejected for reasons such as practicality and enforceability.  The discussion in this chapter focuses on the benefits of the proposals and alternative options.  Chapter 3 estimates the costs each would impose and Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits.

The next section of this chapter describes EPA's non-regulatory programs that have been established to improve worker safety.  The remainder of the chapter is organized according to the ways the proposals will improve worker safety (i.e., to inform workers, protect against exposure, or mitigate the effects of exposure).  For each of these three broad elements, the individual line items that make up the regulatory options are discussed.  Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the changes that will better inform workers and handlers about protecting themselves from pesticide exposure, which comprise three categories, training, hazard communication, and notification.  The provisions that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in Section 2.3 and are divided into three categories, age requirements, restrictions on entry into a treated area, and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to protect against exposure.  The final section, 2.4, addresses changes to the WPS that will mitigate the adverse effects of contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response requirements.  Please refer to the NPRM for the WPS revisions for a complete discussion of the regulatory options considered under this rulemaking proposal and the rationale for the Agency's selection of the final proposed options.

2.1	Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

EPA's pesticide worker safety program is comprised of three major components:
   * protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural worker protection regulation and support activities;
   * the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide applicators; and
   * the national health care providers' pesticide initiative.

2.1.1	Non-regulatory Approaches

In addition to the regulatory changes that EPA is proposing, the Agency engages in extensive non-regulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, handlers, their families and the public from pesticide exposure and potential injury.  To implement these programs, the Office of Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of partners including state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); university cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated community.

EPA funds pesticide safety education and outreach, and regulatory support activities through grants with governmental and non-governmental organizations with the goal of improving the health of workers, handlers, applicators, the public, and the environment.  For example, EPA has a grant with National Association of State Departments of Agriculture-Research Foundation (NASDA-RF) to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to reduce pesticide exposure risks in pesticide worker and other affected populations.  Regionally, nationally, and internationally, NASDA-RF, in collaboration with EPA, works with a variety of partners (community-based organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care providers, regulators, subject matter experts, agricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop creative community-based action plans to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including:  workshops, hands-on training, fact sheets, manuals, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars.

EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those experienced by farmworkers.  These data have been useful in characterizing the benefits of these rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6.

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

EPA supports state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulates the competency of pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement with USDA to support the training of applicators using RUPs through the cooperative extension services in each state.

A core element of EPA's pesticide worker safety program is the national health care providers pesticide initiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings.  EPA collaborated in the development of a manual for health care providers called "Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning."  This resource outlines the health effects associated with different classes of pesticides and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure.  Under this initiative, EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinicians Network, which operates a project to improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and treat pesticide-related conditions. This project includes the development of relevant resources and tools that health care providers need to deal effectively with pesticide-related health conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and continuing education opportunities.

The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS are designed to complement EPA's pesticide worker safety program activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and their families.  In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the process of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants on how to improve pesticide worker safety.

2.1.2	Regulatory Approaches

Approval of a new or amended pesticide registration for sale and use implies EPA approval of the pesticide label.  By law, use of a pesticide must not result in unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.  It is illegal to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.  EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide exposure.  The label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency's risk assessments, including occupational risk assessments.

The label, however, is not available to the typical farmworker, because they are not involved in the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated surfaces after the application has been completed.  The WPS complements the label by providing protections from this post-application exposure.  It established requirements on the employer to notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables workers and handlers to protect themselves and their families, to provide supplies to be used to mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or handler is made ill from such an exposure.  These requirements are generic, crossing all agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and consistently covered in regulation.

2.2	Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training, hazard communication, and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers related to pesticide exposure.  These measures work together to provide workers with important information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions.  Changes to the pesticide safety training requirements will increase worker and handler understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to protect themselves and their families.  Hazard communication requirements make application-specific and pesticide-specific information available when needed.  Notification includes measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide-treated areas and that reinforce pesticide safety training.  Better hazard communication and notification imparts more appropriate information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper protective measures when necessary.

For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current, proposed, and alternative requirements is presented.  Note that one alternative is to leave the current requirements in place.  We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative discussion of expected benefits as well as any disadvantages.  For each of the possible modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN-04).  These indicators are also used in Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented.    For complete details on the regulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM.

2.2.1	Pesticide Safety Training Options

Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure to pesticides, and what to do if exposed to pesticides.  EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications.

Worker Training

Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days.  If full training cannot be provided before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry.  Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years.  WPS also specifies training content and trainer qualifications.  Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements and the potential changes EPA has considered.

Table 2.2-1.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Worker Training Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
                         Worker Training Grace Period
Untrained workers must receive, at a minimum, abbreviated training before they enter a treated area. Full safety training is required before the sixth day of entry into the treated area.
Untrained workers must receive full training prior to entry into a treated area.  An exception is available for a 2-day grace period with provision of essential Right-to-Know information prior to field entry.  The full pesticide safety training would be required before the third day of field entry.
                                  (TRAIN-02)
Require full training prior to entry into a treated area.
                                  (TRAIN-01)
                           Worker Training Frequency
Training required every five years
Annual training required:
                                  (TRAIN-03)
Biennial training required:
                                  (TRAIN-04)
                                      or
Annual training with exception for WPS farms with < 10 employees, no worker turnover, and no change in application information
                                  (TRAIN-05)
                         Training Content for Workers
11 basic pesticide safety training points covered
   1. Possible exposures.
   2. Hazards.
   3. Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
   4. Signs and symptoms of poisoning.
   5. Emergency first aid for poisonings.
   6. Obtaining medical care.
   7. Decontamination procedures.
   8. Hazards from chemigation and drift.
   9. Hazards from residues on clothing.
   10. Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.
   11. WPS requirements.
Expand 11 basic safety training requirements to include:
      * Take home exposure
      * Early entry notification
      * Understanding hazard information  -  SDS
                                  (TRAIN-06)
Further expand 11 basic safety training requirements to include:
         * Take home exposure
      * Early entry notification
         * Understanding hazard information  -  crop sheets and product-specific training
                                  (TRAIN-07)
                       Criteria for Trainers of  Workers
Training for workers can be performed by certified applicators, trainers of certified applicators, people who have completed "Train-the-trainer" programs, and handlers
Limit worker trainers to those who:
      * Have completed an EPA approved Train-the-Trainer program or
      * Are trainers of certified applicators
                                  (TRAIN-08)
Limit worker trainers to those who:
      * Have completed an EPA approved Train-the-Trainer program
                                  (TRAIN-09)

Pesticide Safety Training Grace Period for Workers (TRAIN-01 and 02)

The WPS currently permits a five-day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of the full pesticide safety training.  Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training.  After five days of entry into a treated area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must receive full pesticide safety training.  This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992.

Options for revision are discussed in detail in Unit XVII.C of the NPRM.

TRAIN-01
A potential option is to eliminate the grace period and require training of all employees prior to their entry into a treated area.  The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the full safety training prior to entering treated areas, providing workers with the full information they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure.  It would also prevent the possibility that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working more than five days at a time, which may happen, for example, during harvest season.  Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at different times and that a worker may receive duplicative training if he or she changes employers.

TRAIN-02
The proposed requirement would require training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an exception with a two-day grace period.  It would also expand the information provided to employees during this period.  The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never receive full training.  However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some flexibility for growers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings.

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years.  Unit VII.A of the NPRM provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative options.

TRAIN-03/04
The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement.
One alternative considered (TRAIN-04) would be to require pesticide safety training every two years.  Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients.  Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle.  The expected benefits are improvements in workers' ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6.  Annual training is common practice in other industries and not only for safety.  For example, the federal government requires annual training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity.  OSHA requires annual training in workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present.  Many agricultural employers are already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements.

TRAIN-05
A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 2008), would be to provide an exception from annual worker training for WPS farms with fewer than ten employees if there had been no turnover in the work force and no changes in the application information (e.g., pesticides used, application rates) since the last worker safety training.  This alternative would reduce the burden on small farms (discussed in Chapter 3).  The exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices.  As noted above, however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does not change.

Pesticide Safety Training Content

Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points:
      (1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs,
      (2) hazards associated with exposure,
      (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body,
      (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning,
      (5) emergency first aid for poisoning,
      (6) obtaining medical care,
      (7) decontamination procedures,
      (8) hazards associated with chemigation and spray drift,
      (9) hazards from residues on clothing,
      (10) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and
      (11) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency assistance, etc.).
EPA considered several options for expanding the content of the required worker pesticide safety training.  See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

TRAIN-06/07
Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights (e.g., to hazard information) and protections (e.g., from retaliation), and new WPS requirements.  This information addresses problem areas that have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last revisions to WPS in 1992.  See Chapter 1.  For example, many recent studies have shown the potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home.  Training in new WPS requirements, including information to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and the availability of hazard communication materials, will help to insure safety measures are followed and that workers understand their employer's responsibilities in reducing exposure to pesticides.  The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication.  The proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see HAZCOM-02); the alternative would explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04).

Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications

Currently, pesticide safety training for workers can be conducted by certified pesticide applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an approved pesticide safety "train-the-trainer" program.  Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for complete details.

TRAIN-08
The proposed option would eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and handlers.  The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a train-the-trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality training programs, which result in better worker protection.  The experience of certified applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with treated plants and other surfaces.  Further, without additional preparation, certified applicators and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally-distinct backgrounds.  EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their families.

TRAIN-09
An alternative option EPA considered was to restrict qualified trainers to only those who have completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program.  In comparison to the proposed option, this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community.

Handler Training

WPS provisions for handler safety training are similar to those for workers.  Handlers must take the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years.  The WPS specifies trainer qualifications.  Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training and the potential changes EPA has considered.

Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task.  No grace period is permitted.

Table 2.2-2.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Handler Training Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
                              Training Frequency
Training required every five years
Annual training required:
                                  (TRAIN-12)
Biennial training required:
                                  (TRAIN-13)
                         Training Content for Handlers
13 topics are covered
   1.  Product label, including safety information
   2.  Hazards.
   3.  Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
   4.  Signs and symptoms of poisoning.
   5.  Emergency first aid.
   6.  Emergency medical care
   7.  Decontamination procedures
   8.  Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
   9.  Heat-related illness issues
   10.  Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides
   11.  Environmental concerns
   12.  Warnings about taking pesticides or their containers home
   13.  Regulatory requirements of handling.
Expand 13 topics covered to include:
      * Take home exposure
      * Early entry notification and age limit
      * Entry restricted area requirements
      * Requirements for respirator fit test, training and medical evaluation
      * Hazard information  -  SDS
                                   (TRAIN-14)
Expand 13 topics covered to include:
      * Take home exposure
      * Early entry notification and age limit
      * Entry restricted area requirements
      * Requirements for proper respirator fit test, training, and medical evaluation
      * Hazard information -crop specific hazard materials  product specific training
                                  (TRAIN-15)

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years.  Unit VII.A of the NPRM provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements.

TRAIN-12/13
As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN-12).  The alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler training every two years.  Similar to training frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients.  Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle.  The expected benefits are improvements in workers' ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6.

Pesticide Safety Training Content

Handler training currently covers 14 topics:
      (1) product label information,
      (2) hazards,
      (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body,
      (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning,
      (5) emergency first aid for poisoning,
      (6) obtaining medical care,
      (7) decontamination procedures,
      (8) personal protective equipment,
      (9) heat-related illness issues,
      (10) safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides,
      (11) environmental concerns,
      (12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home,
      (13) regulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and
      (14) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency assistance, etc.).
EPA considered expanding the content of the required handler pesticide safety training to include several additional topics.  See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

TRAIN-14/15
Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, handler rights, and new WPS requirements.  Benefits would be similar to those of worker training.  For handler training, the additional components not relevant to workers would be defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person enters the restricted area.  Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users.  This information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA.  As with workers, the proposed option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets.

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification

Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and handlers receive the required pesticide safety training.  This makes it difficult for both employers and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training requirements.  There is, however, an optional program for states to distribute training verification cards supplied by EPA to trainers.  Agricultural employers in participating states can hire workers and handlers with valid training verification cards, which can reduce their pesticide safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card.  However, there is no requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2-3 presents the potential requirements.  Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed requirements in detail.

Table 2.2-3.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
                                 Recordkeeping
No Records Required.
Employer to keep records of worker training for 2 years:
      * Names of workers trained, trainer and employer
      * Date of birth of worker
      * Date of training
      * Training materials used
      * Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of worker
      * Documentation of trainer's qualification
                                  (TRAIN-10)
Employer to keep worker training records for 5 years:
      * Names of workers trained, trainer and employer
      * Date of birth of worker
      * Date of training
      * Training materials used
      * Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of worker
      * Documentation of trainer's qualification
                                  (TRAIN-11)

Employer to keep handler training records for 2 years:
      * Names of handlers trained, trainer and employer
      * Date of training
      * Date of birth of handler
      * Date of training
      * Training materials used
      * Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of handler
      * Documentation of trainer's qualification
                                  (TRAIN-16)
Employer to keep handler training records for 5 years:
      * Names of handlers trained, trainer and employer
      * Date of birth of handler
      * Date of training
      * Training materials used
      * Acknowledgement of receipt of training by signature of handler
                                  (TRAIN-17)
                                 Verification
Voluntary Program Allows for Training Verification  Cards
Provide verification in the form of a copy of the training record to handler or worker
                                  (TRAIN-20)
Eliminate federal option for worker and handler training verification card programs.
                                  (TRAIN-18)
                                      or
Require worker and handler training verification cards
                                  (TRAIN-19)

Recordkeeping

TRAIN-10/16
Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers, employers would be required to document pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years.  Documentation would include the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of training, the worker's or handler's date of birth, the training materials used, and the employee's signature acknowledging training.

TRAIN-11/17
The second set of options is identical except that records would be maintained for five years.

These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met.  A clear advantage of the five-year option over the two-year retention option is that it matches the current five-year training cycle.  Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period provides greater benefits than a two-year retention period as enforcement actions may not be brought immediately.  On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed EPA that a two-year retention period is adequate.

Verification

TRAIN-17
This potential requirement would eliminate EPA's optional verification card system.  States would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed recordkeeping requirement) if they choose.  However, state agencies report that verification cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering and falsification has become common practice.  Further, worker and handler training does not currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified.  Finally, with the current five-year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer.  Thus, under the current system, verification cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee.  In fact, many states do not participate in the system.

TRAIN-18
An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when they are trained.  Card distribution would be conducted by the trainers.  EPA would issue cards with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards.  As noted above, this would have little benefit under the current WPS.   Falsified cards and the lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and for enforcement to determine compliance.  However, in conjunction with other potential requirements, there may be advantages.  For example, if the existing grace period for full pesticide safety training is eliminated or shortened (TRAIN-01 and 02), a training verification system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are in compliance with training requirements.  Similarly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN-03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings.  A major drawback to the card is that a driver's license-sized card will be too small to contain all the required information, and would therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record.

TRAIN-19
The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but does not require the use of the verification cards and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained employee.  In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requirement would be more convenient for original employer, who would not have to provide individualized cards to every trained worker.  It also insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records.  It may be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to another establishment than to carry a wallet-sized card.  In addition, the potential for fraud, as with TRAIN-18, remains.

2.2.2	Hazard Communication Options

Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with application-specific information, including the name of the pesticide used.  The information is posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI expires.  EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific information be made available and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide-specific information is presented.  Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requirements for hazard communication.

Table 2.2-4.  Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
               Application Specific Information and Availability
Display at a central location, for each application,
   * location and description of treated area;
   * active ingredient, product name, registration number;
   * time and date of application;
   * duration of REI
Make a copy available on request, for each application,
   * location and description of treated area;
   * crop or site treated
   * active ingredient, product name, registration number;
   * time and date application started and ended;
   * duration and end date of REI
                                  (HAZCOM-01)
                      No change from current requirements
                Pesticide Specific Information and Availability
No requirements for pesticide-specific hazard information
Pesticide label and SDS must be available
                                  (HAZCOM-02)
Pesticide label must be available
                                  (HAZCOM-03)
                                      or
Distribute crop sheet to workers and/or handlers upon entry into a treated area
                                  (HAZCOM-04)
                          Retention and Recordkeeping
Application-specific
information must be displayed prior to application and for 30 days after the REI
Application and pesticide-specific information must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 2 years
                                  (HAZCOM-05)
Application and pesticide-specific information must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 5 years
                                  (HAZCOM-06)
                          Hazard Information Material
No requirements for use or production of crop-specific hazard materials
                      No change from current requirements
Registrant to develop crop sheets for each WPS product and use pattern
                                  (HAZCOM-07)

Application Specific Information and Availability

HAZCOM-01
Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application-specific information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the application, and the duration of the REI.  The information must be posted before the application is made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI.  EPA's proposal, HAZCOM-01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application-specific information as currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI.  The addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise treated area.  Addition of the start and end times for the application, in conjunction with the date, would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends.  This gives employees more precise information than just the duration.  Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative.  This approach to hazard communication has certain advantages over centralized posting.  Detailed information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis.  Multiple postings at a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields without providing actionable information.  The WPS also requires agricultural employers to notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur.  Finally, many central posting areas are exterior gathering locations and postings are subject to loss or damage by wind and weather.  A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable to request the information from their employer.  Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more complete discussion of this requirement.

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

HAZCOM-02
EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the SDS.  The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product.  OSHA requires employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than pesticides.  EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product.

In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness.  Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from the label and, especially, the SDS.  Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical and speed the diagnosis of an illness.  The SDS also provides treatment information.

HAZCOM-03
An alternative would be to require only the pesticide label, but not the SDS.  This would at least ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pesticide.  The label, however, may not indicate treatment.

HAZCOM-04
Under a second alternative, EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and handlers upon entry into a pesticide-treated area.  The advantage of this approach is that it provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, reducing the potential for confusion from multiple postings at the central location.  However, the benefits of this detailed information are uncertain.  Such detailed information could potentially confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is different for every situation.  That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it is one day or one week.  Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005).  Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present complex information to this diverse community would be challenging.

Retention and Record Keeping

HAZCOM-05/06
These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively).  See Unit IX.D of the NPRM.  As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN-06), the advantage of retaining records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both the WPS farm and the enforcement agency.  Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful.

Hazard Information Material

Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g., the SDS.  EPA considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical-specific hazard sheets for all agricultural products, HAZCOM-07.  This requirement would support the option discussed above, HAZCOM-04.  This information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there may be different use patterns on different crops (e.g., application rates) and different potential for exposure on different crops (e.g., leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and in different activities (e.g., weeding versus harvesting).  As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not clear that this additional information provides substantial benefits.  Pesticide safety educators have informed EPA that providing very specific and complex information for the agricultural worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions.

2.2.3	Notification Options

The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse.  The intent is that employees will know when precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented.  Current notification requirements include displaying pesticide application and pesticide safety information in a central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing workers, and informing workers enter areas under a REI about the pesticides used.  The WPS also requires certain information exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide appropriate notification to their respective employees.  EPA is considering revising the notification requirements in three areas:  (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted entry interval (REI), (2) information on decontamination procedures, and (3) information transmitted from commercial applicators' employers to the agricultural employer.

Restricted Entry Interval Notification

Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers.  Warnings need not be given to a particular employee if, from the start of the application to the end of the re-entry interval, the employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the handler who applied the pesticide.  Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces.  There are currently no requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements.

EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more situations.  EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure compliance.  Table 2.2-5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements.

Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative REI Notification Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
                               REI Notification
Outdoor production:  Either oral notification or post warning signs unless double notification required by label
Post field with warning signs if REI is greater than 48 hours; either oral notification or signs for REIs of 48 hours or less (unless double notification required)
                                  (NOTIFY-01)
Post field with warning signs if REI is greater than 72 hours; either oral notification or signs for REIs of 72 hours or less (unless double notification required)
                                  (NOTIFY-02)
Indoor production (WPS Greenhouses):  Warning signs must be posted; additional oral notification for double notification products
Oral notification allowed if REI is 4 hours or less
                                  (NOTIFY-03)
                      No change from current requirements
No requirements for record keeping
                      No change from current requirements
Signed acknowledgement of oral  notification retained for 2 years
                                  (NOTIFY-04)
                                      or
Signed acknowledgement of oral  notification retained for 5 years
                                  (NOTIFY-05)
                               REI warning signs
Sign depicts a stern face in a circle as a warning, with message : "Keep Out"
Stern face in an octagon (stop sign) shape as  warning, with message: "Entry Restricted"
                                  (NOTIFY-06)
Revise field warning sign to include:
::	Skull and crossbones
:: 	Application information on the sign (date of application, REI, product)
                                  (NOTIFY-07)
Post so signs are visible from  usual points of entry into treated area (or in corners of field or other location allowing maximum visibility) and near worker housing
Define `near' worker housing as within 100 feet
                                  (NOTIFY-08)
Field warning sign placement: every 100 feet as well as the usual points of entry
                                  (NOTIFY-09)
           Notification to workers entering treated area during REI
               (Does not apply to "no contact" situations.)
Agricultural employer must ensure that employee has either read or been informed of all labeling requirements related to human hazards and precautions, uses PPE as required by the label, and follows any other label requirements regarding early entry.
Oral notification to workers prior to entry into treated area during REI:
         * Date of entry
         * Location of early-entry area
         * Pesticides applied
         * Labeling related to human hazards and precautions
         * Dates and times REI begins and ends
         * Exception that allows early entry
         * Type of contact permitted with treated surfaces
         * Amount of time worker is allowed in area
         * Required PPE
         * Location of safety poster display
         * Location of decontamination supplies
                                  (NOTIFY-10)
Oral and written notification  to workers prior to entry into treated area during REI:
         * Date of entry
         * Location of early-entry area
         * Pesticides applied
         * Labeling related to hazard and precautions
         * Dates and times REI begins and ends
         * Exception that allows early entry
         * Type of contact permitted with treated surfaces
         * Amount of time worker is allowed in area
         * Required PPE
         * Location of safety poster display
         * Location of decontamination supplies
                                  (NOTIFY-11)
No requirements for record keeping
                            Require recordkeeping:
         * Notification (see above), except labeling hazard and precaution information
         * Acknowledge - ment of notification by printed name and signature of workers
         * Retain for 2 years
                                  (NOTIFY-12)
                            Require recordkeeping:
         * Notification, except labeling hazard and precaution information
         * Acknowledge - ment of notification by printed name and signature of workers
         * Retain for 5 years
                                  (NOTIFY-13)

REI Notification

Under the current rule, notification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers by the agricultural employer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except where the product label requires both.  Greenhouses are required to post signs for all applications.

NOTIFY-01
The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticides applications where the REI is greater than 48 hours.  See Unit VII.A of the NPRM.  The purpose of this proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory can be poor.  Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leading cause of pesticide incidents, following drift from adjacent fields, according to a NIOSH review of available information (Calvert et al., 2008).  It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall.  On farms producing a variety of crops, there could be several fields treated with different products and remembering which fields should be avoided could become difficult.  Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications.  Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for long REIs.  Recall may be problematic for employers, as well.  Employers must notify workers at the time of the application, but must also remember to notify workers who are not present at the time when they return to work.  The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers receive the appropriate notification.

NOTIFY-02
An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has a REI greater than 72 hours.  This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to remember REI information for three days rather than two.

NOTIFY-03
EPA is proposing to allow greenhouse operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four hours or less.  In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications occur over such a short time interval.

NOTIFY-04/05
Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce.  A potential mechanism to address this issue is to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification.  This record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement purposes.  As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or greenhouse.

REI Warning Signs

The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, the sign content, and the locations required for posting signs.

NOTIFY-06
Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words "Keep Out."  The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a widely-recognized symbol for stop.  It would also change the words "Keep Out" to "Entry Restricted."  The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter under certain conditions to perform early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS.  Unit VIII.C of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions.

NOTIFY-07
An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as require posting field-specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of the REI, and the pesticide product.  While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants.  Widespread use of the graphic for all pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases.  The field-specific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11).

NOTIFY-08
REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area or an area affording maximum visibility.  Signs are also required to be placed on each border with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area.  The proposed revision clarifies that the warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated area.  The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials.

NOTIFY-09
An alternate potential requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet along the field as well as at the usual points of entry.  The advantage of this requirement is that it would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without following established routes.  It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage the plants.

Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certain narrow exceptions.  These exceptions are for "limited contact", "no contact", "short-term", "irrigation" or "agricultural emergency activities."  Except for entry under the "no contact" exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks wear all PPE required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information on the pesticide label prior to entry.  See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details.  EPA is also considering certain revisions to these exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below.

NOTIFY-10
As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al., 2008).  Sufficient information is lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred during employer-directed entry.  Under the proposed option, the early entry notification would be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces.  Advocacy organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception.

NOTIFY-11
EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute written pesticide hazard information (i.e., crop sheets) to each worker upon early entry in addition to the oral warnings, as suggested by Farmworker Justice.  The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated with pesticide exposure.  Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especially if the employer or employee is using a second language.  On the other hand, given language differences and the literacy rate in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more effective than oral communication.  Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms.  Finally, farmworkers may not have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, such documents often end up scattered in the field.

NOTIFY-12/13
These potential provisions would require the agricultural employer to retain a worker-signed record that notification was provided prior to early entry.  NOTIFY-09 would require retention for two years while NOTIFY-10 would require that records be kept for five years.  As above, records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance.  These records can also help in diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms.

Pesticide Safety Information Display

The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed.  Currently, safety posters are required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm.  Table 2.2-6 presents current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays.  Contact information for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things.  See Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information.  See the NPRM, Unit XII.A, for more on additional displays.

Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements.
Current Requirement
                             Proposed Requirement
                            Alternative Requirement
                         Pesticide Safety Information
Basic pesticide safety information display includes decontamination information and self-protective practices
Additional basic pesticide safety information display content to include:
         * State enforcement agency contact information
         * Medical facility contact information
                                  (NOTIFY-14)
                      No change from current requirements
Basic pesticide safety information displayed at a central location
Additional safety information display required with worker decontamination supplies
                                  (NOTIFY-15)
Additional display with all field warning signs
                                  (NOTIFY-17)

Additional safety information  display with handler decontamination supplies
                                  (NOTIFY-16)