View Rule

Statement of Need:

Stakeholders have identified gaps in the protections in the current worker protection regulations. Revisions to the regulations are necessary to better protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide exposure.

Summary of the Legal Basis:

This rulemaking is being developed under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).

Alternatives:

EPA proposed several amendments to the existing WPS requirements, including: amending the existing pesticide safety training content, retraining interval (frequency), and qualifications of trainers; ensuring workers receive safety information before entering any pesticide treated area by amending the existing grace period and expanding the training required during the grace period; establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers and for workers who enter an area under an re-entry interval (REI); establishing requirements for specific training and notification for workers who enter an area under an REI; restricting persons' entry into areas adjacent to a treated area during an application; enhancing the requirement for employers to post warning signs around treated areas; modifying the content of the warning sign; adding information employers must keep under the requirement to maintain application-specific information; requiring recordkeeping for pesticide safety training and worker entry into areas under an REI; ensuring the immediate family exemption includes an exemption from the proposed minimum age requirements for handlers and early-entry workers; and expanding the definition of immediate family to allow more family-owned operations to qualify for the exemptions to the WPS requirements. EPA considered a variety of alternatives for each of the proposed changes. The published NPRM describes each of the alternatives considered in detail.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

The Economic Analysis issued with the proposed rule provides the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with the proposed rule. As proposed, the estimated cost is between $62 and $73 million annually, with most of the cost on the agricultural employer; and the quantified benefits are estimated between $5 - $14 million annually, from avoided acute illnesses. A break even analysis of the potential reduction in chronic illnesses indicates that only 53 cases of several chronic illnesses (Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma) would satisfy the gap between the quantified benefits and the cost.

Risks:

Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are at risk from pesticide exposure through their work activities, and may put their families at risk of secondary exposures. In order to address exposure risks to workers, pesticide handlers, and their families, the Agency has proposed revisions identified by stakeholders.