Administrative Exception to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry Prohibition for Harvesting Cut Roses

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-300164H; FRL-4779-8]

Administrative Exception to Worker Protection Standard Early

Entry Prohibition for Harvesting Cut Roses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Administrative Exception decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is granting an administrative exception to the general

prohibition on early entry into pesticide treated areas for hand labor

contained in the Worker Protection Standard issued under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The exception

allows, for a 2-year period, under specified conditions, early entry to

harvest greenhouse-grown cut roses. This exception will provide the cut

rose industry additional time to develop and implement safe

alternatives to early entry. EPA is denying an exception for other cut

flower and cut fern industries at this time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: All comments submitted on the proposed exception are

available for public inspection in the Office of Pesticide Programs'

public docket, room 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Therese Murtagh, Chief, Occupational

Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-7666.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

EPA issued on August 21, 1992, (57 FR 38102) a final rule

establishing Worker Protection Standards (WPS) for agricultural

pesticides (40 CFR part 170). The WPS includes a prohibition against

routine early entry to pesticide treated areas to perform hand labor

tasks during restricted-entry intervals (referred to as ``early

entry''). Section 170.112(e) of the WPS provides a process for

considering exceptions to this prohibition against early entry. In the

same August 21, 1992 Federal Register, EPA proposed to grant an

exception to the early-entry prohibition for the cut flower and cut

fern industries. Information received from the industry during the

comment period for the proposed WPS persuaded EPA that there could be

substantial economic repercussions if routine hand labor tasks were

prohibited during the restricted-entry interval (57 FR 38175). EPA

solicited comments on the proposed exception for the cut flower and cut

fern industries and received a wide range of comments both supporting

and opposing the proposed exception.

II. EPA's Exception Decision

EPA has reviewed the information received and has decided to grant

a modified exception to the early-entry prohibition for harvesting

greenhouse-grown cut roses only. The information submitted by the rose

industry combined with EPA's knowledge of rose production convinced EPA

that rose growers could suffer a substantial economic impact if

compliance with the WPS early-entry restrictions were required. EPA is

granting a 2-year exception to provide rose growers time to adjust

pesticide spray schedules, find early-entry alternatives, and develop

technology. The exception is subject to conditions designed to mitigate

risk to early-entry workers. EPA believes that early entry under the

terms of the exception for the period of 2 years will not pose

unreasonable adverse effects to rose harvesters.

EPA believes the economic benefits of a 2-year exception for rose

growers may be high and that the conditions of this exception will

mitigate workers' risks. EPA does not, however, have sufficient

information about the risks and benefits of the exception to grant a

broader or longer term exception. If the rose industry determines that

it needs an exception beyond 2 years, the industry will need to provide

additional information on the economic benefits of an exception, as

well as the risks, in a new exception request under Sec. 170.112(e)(1).

This information should include worker exposure data, poisoning

incident data, personal protective equipment feasibility information,

and data on the economics of rose production and how WPS early-entry

restrictions affect revenues.

EPA has not received sufficient information to warrant an exception

to the early-entry prohibition for other cut flower and cut fern

producers at this time. Information submitted in some comments suggests

that alternatives to early entry exist for these other crops and that

such an early entry prohibition would not cause economic repercussions

great enough to outweigh the risk to workers. Growers of other cut

flowers and cut ferns who would still like EPA to consider an exception

for these crops should submit an exception request which supplies the

information outlined in Sec. 170.112(e)(1). This includes information

on crop production and pesticide use practices, alternative practices,

economic data, safety practices, and the costs and feasibility of

implementing the conditions under which an exception would be granted.

III. Comments, Summary of Major Issues Raised in the Comments and EPA's

Findings

In the WPS, EPA prohibited early entry for hand labor such as

harvesting because EPA concluded that entry during a restricted-entry

interval (REI) to perform routine hand labor tasks is rarely necessary,

that personal protective equipment (PPE) for field workers is

impractical because workers may remove it or use it incorrectly, and

that PPE may be risk inducing because of heat stress concerns. Here,

the rose industry has made a case, at least for the interim, that

routine entry during an REI to harvest roses is necessary and that

prohibiting such entry could have a substantial economic impact on rose

growers.

Therefore, EPA is granting a limited exception to allow workers to

harvest greenhouse-grown cut roses to avoid excessive economic burden

to rose growers. Under conditions described below, workers may enter

treated areas under an REI to harvest roses. EPA believes that in rose

greenhouses, the use of PPE, a limitation on worker-exposure time,

accessible decontamination facilities, provision of label-specific

information to workers, basic pesticide safety training, and shade and

mechanical cooling devices will mitigate risks for rose harvesters. The

following additional factors contributed to EPA's decision: (1) PPE

would be worn for only limited periods of time; (2) greenhouses usually

encompass a much smaller area than field crops so that employers should

more easily be able to ensure that workers wear the PPE; (3) harvesting

could be accomplished in a reasonably efficient manner while wearing

the required PPE, including coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves

(possibly as liners underneath leather gloves), chemical-resistant

footwear and headgear (if the potential for head exposure exists), and

protective eyewear; (4) the accessibility, usual in rose greenhouses,

of running water and in many cases showers for decontamination and

heat-stress alleviation; and (5) the availability, also usual in rose

greenhouses, of shade, fans, or other mechanical ventilation to provide

some cooling. EPA therefore believes that early entry with PPE would be

feasible and provide adequate reduction of risks to rose harvesters.

Under the conditions of this exception there will be less pesticide

exposure to rose harvesters than in the past.

However, because of continuing uncertainty about the potential

risks to early-entry rose harvesters and about the extent of the

economic impact of WPS entry restrictions, and because EPA believes

that certain alternative practices will eventually reduce or eliminate

the need for early entry for rose harvesting, EPA is limiting the

exception to 2 years. Should industry determine it needs an exception

beyond 2 years, the industry will need to provide EPA with additional

information on risks and benefits to support such an exception request.

A. Economic Need

Comments received from rose growers estimated annual revenue losses

from $22,000 to more than $50,000 per acre as a result of restricted-

entry intervals imposed by the WPS, should no exception be granted.

Roses, Incorporated, a national association representing rose growers,

estimated an average annual loss of $35,000 per acre for rose growers

nationally. This is based on an estimated loss of the equivalent of 1

day's harvest per week due to the WPS. These figures appear to be based

on the frequency at which pesticides are normally applied in rose

production, the toxicity categories of the pesticides most commonly

used on roses, and the need to harvest roses 2 times per day to ensure

the harvested crop will yield a premium price. One comment stated that

a rose crop can lose 80 percent of its value in 5 hours if not

harvested promptly. Several rose growers commented that, given the

practices currently employed on their operations, they would lose from

10 percent to 28 percent of their crop as a result of the WPS

prohibition against reentry for harvesting during restricted-entry

intervals, which range from 12 to 48 hours. These comments cite an

average loss of 1 to 2-days' harvest each week depending on the

pesticides applied.

Many growers also cited foreign competition in the rose industry as

posing a serious economic threat. According to information submitted,

imported roses, which represented less than 10 percent of the domestic

market in 1980, now account for approximately 50 percent of the U.S.

rose supply. Several comments noted that roses can be produced outside

the U.S. with far lower labor costs and fewer government restrictions

on chemicals used and on workplace safety. A few comments stated that

domestic rose producers have managed to retain an economic edge over

their foreign competitors by producing higher quality roses. These

comments also noted, however, that quality rose production is dependent

on intensive pesticide use to ensure an enhanced cosmetic standard.

Comments opposing the exception noted that the industry's estimates

are based on current practices which rely on entry as soon as sprays

have dried and dusts have settled. These comments suggested that

alternative cultivation practices, such as improved scheduling of

pesticide applications around essential work activities and use of

nonchemical or less-toxic chemical pesticides, would either greatly

reduce or eliminate the need for early entry.

One rose grower also noted that improved worker safety, while

important in itself, has economic benefits which would offset some of

the costs to employers brought on by the conditions of the exception

proposed by EPA.

EPA currently has insufficient information to project

quantitatively the economic impacts of not granting an exception to

rose growers at this time. Given current practices, it is clear that

without an exception to early-entry prohibitions, rose growers would be

forced to change their practices. EPA expects that such changes in

pesticide-use patterns, harvesting, post-harvest handling, scheduling

of activities, or other cultural practices will either decrease

growers' revenues, increase costs, or both, thereby decreasing growers'

income at least in the short run. Given EPA's knowledge of rose

culture, including the high per acre value of rose production, and

information presented in comments submitted by rose growers, EPA

believes that the impacts of denying the exception at this time could

be substantial.

EPA also believes that the entry requirements set out in the terms

of the exception will encourage the rose industry to adopt alternative

production practices which ultimately will reduce the need for early

entry, the toxicity of pesticide used, the frequency of pesticide use,

and, eventually, the potential economic losses resulting from WPS entry

restrictions.

B. Risk to Workers

Most comments opposing the proposed exception identified risk to

workers as a primary concern. These comments observed that the

frequency and volume of pesticide use in flower production which is

necessary to maintain a high cosmetic standard contributes to worker

exposure risk.

Several comments included specific information about injuries and

poisonings relating to benomyl use. (EPA notes that in 1992 all

ornamental uses of benomyl, including use on roses, were voluntarily

cancelled. Therefore benomyl should pose no added risk to workers

harvesting roses under this exception.)

A number of comments also noted injuries to workers in cut-fern

operations and included testimonials from fern workers who suffered

pesticide-related illnesses or injuries. Some comments included

reference to a study (Brouwer et. al. 1991) which suggested that

workers in cut flower cultivation may experience higher exposure than

workers who apply the pesticides.

Most comments from growers, on the other hand, noted safety records

reflecting few, if any, lost work days as a result of worker exposure

to pesticides. Roses, Inc., surveyed its members in 1988 about

pesticide safety records and suggested that the survey results

supported these comments. However, due to the limited scope of the

survey and because the survey to some extent relied on growers'

memories for data collection, it is difficult to draw conclusions from

the results.

Many growers' comments noted that a factor contributing to rose

workplace safety is the relative stability of the work force. Since

roses are cultivated year round there is less worker turnover than in

other, seasonal crops. Some growers cited an average employment period

of 5 years or more per worker, and others added that rose workers are

frequently paid by the hour rather than at a piece rate, which may

encourage safer work practices. Rose growers also commented that

productive workers must be trained and gain experience in cultivation

and harvesting techniques. This employer investment also contributes to

work force stability and safety.

Employers' Reports of Occupational Injuries, compiled by the

California Department of Industrial Relations from 1981 to 1990,

indicate that workers in horticultural specialty crops, which include

roses, had a slightly higher rate of pesticide poisoning (0.53

poisonings per 1,000 workers per year) than that for agricultural

workers in general (0.46 poisonings per 1,000 workers per year). This

data, as well as information gathered by Agency experts about intensive

pesticide use in rose production, has led EPA to determine that,

without PPE and the other protective conditions of this exception, risk

is as high or higher for rose harvesters as for workers harvesting

outdoor agricultural crops such as strawberries, cotton, leaf crops,

etc. EPA believes worker exposure risk is a serious concern in

greenhouse rose production. Certain workplace conditions discussed

below, however, increase the likelihood that the conditions of this

exception will effectively mitigate worker exposure risk.

The Brouwer study measured pesticide residues collected on hand and

arm coverings worn by workers during flower-cultivation activities

without any protective clothing or gloves being placed between treated

foliage and the residue collectors. Workers in the Brouwer study were

not provided with or required to use protective gear and their time in

treated areas was not limited. EPA believes the conditions of this

exception, which also include training about pesticide hazards and

personal safety, and employer-provided PPE and decontamination

facilities, will reduce worker exposure during harvesting activities

permitted by this exception. Because the rose workforce is

comparatively small and stable, EPA believes the conditions placed on

this exception will be easier to implement and monitor than for many

other agricultural crops.

EPA remains concerned about worker risk in rose cultivation. EPA is

gathering the data necessary to establish chemical-specific REIs to

ensure workers are adequately protected from risks associated with

reentry. As a result of this process, some product-specific REIs

appearing on pesticide labels include special restrictions. The

exception described in this Notice may be used unless early entry is

expressly prohibited in product labeling.

C. Conditions of the Exception

In 1992, EPA proposed to grant this exception subject to the

following conditions: (1) The PPE specified on the product labeling for

early entry is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker by the

employer, and measures to prevent heat-related illness are implemented,

when appropriate; (2) no entry takes place for the first 4 hours after

the application and, thereafter, until any exposure level listed in the

labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by

the WPS or in the labeling have been met; (3) the time in treated areas

for each worker may not exceed 3 hours in any 24-hour period; (4) the

required decontamination and change areas are provided; and (5) the

required basic training and label-specific information have been

furnished. Public comments on these conditions, which are designed to

mitigate risk to early-entry workers, are discussed below.

At the time the exception was proposed, EPA expected that the basic

provisions of the WPS for all workers would be provided for early-entry

workers under this exception. However, since recent legislation has

delayed the compliance date of certain WPS provisions, some of those

basic protections have been incorporated into the conditions of this

exception.

1. Personal protective equipment (PPE). Several comments opposing

the exception stated that PPE use is not practical or feasible for

harvesters. The Farmworker Justice Fund and others noted that often

workers are not provided with PPE because it is expensive. Farmworker

advocates also commented that PPE is not practical for harvesting cut

flowers because it is awkward to use and uncomfortable. This, they

argued, is a disincentive for some workers--those paid a piece rate--to

use PPE since it could slow their work and thus reduce their pay.

Some comments from rose growers echoed these concerns and

recommended EPA permit early entry with normal work attire (long

sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks) and leather gloves,

expressing fear that a crop could be damaged by PPE-encumbered

harvesters. Other rose growers noted that, relative to the value of

lost crop without an exception, the cost of PPE is low. Therefore,

employers would assume the cost of providing PPE to their workers if it

were a condition of the exception. Some growers also commented that

rose workers are frequently paid by the hour rather than a piece rate.

In such cases, there would be no economic reason for workers to avoid

use of PPE.

EPA notes that in most situations--even for toxicity category I

pesticides--the most PPE that would be required for early-entry workers

will be coveralls over long pants and a long-sleeved shirt, socks,

chemical-resistant footwear, and chemical-resistant gloves. If the

pesticide is an eye irritant, eye protection also will be required. EPA

believes that this level of PPE is not likely to affect workers'

mobility or dexterity to the extent that it could lead to a damaged

crop or discourage workers from using the required PPE.

The Farmworker Justice Fund and other commenters who opposed the

exception questioned the feasibility of PPE for protecting workers.

Some comments cited a study evaluating PPE during chemical applications

(Fenske, R.A., 1988) which demonstrated certain deficiencies in PPE's

protective qualities. These deficiencies included pesticide exposure

through seams and openings in protective garments. The study also

showed exposure as a result of workers removing gloves because of

discomfort.

EPA notes that, while some problems identified in the Fenske study

which involved pesticide applicators may also apply to early-entry

workers, the potential circumstances of exposure differ. Under this

exception, early-entry workers would enter to work in a treated area

under an REI only after a minimum of 4 hours have elapsed since the end

of an application, while applicators involved in treating the area

would have potential for direct exposure to pesticide formulations as

they are applied. Additionally, the time in treated areas under this

exception would be limited to 3 hours per worker per day. Also, since

the Fenske study, several PPE manufacturers have made improvements in

their products including better engineered seam closures, lighter-

weight materials, and enhanced comfort for workers.

Chemical-resistant gloves and glove liners. If the product label

requires chemical-resistant gloves, the WPS allows rose harvesters to

use chemical-resistant glove liners under leather gloves in lieu of

chemical-resistant gloves because of concern over sharp thorns. (Once

leather gloves have been worn for this use, thereafter they may only be

worn with chemical-resistant glove liners and for no other use.) Roses,

Inc., and other commenters in favor of the exception requested that EPA

allow rose harvesters to use leather gloves only in lieu of either

chemical-resistant gloves or leather gloves with chemical-resistant

glove liners. These comments stated that chemical-resistant gloves that

are sufficiently supple and durable for rose harvesting are not yet

available. Roses, Inc., after testing some glove options with member

growers, added that chemical-resistant glove liners tend to be

uncomfortable to wear and cause hands to sweat excessively which may

encourage skin and fingernail diseases. One comment suggested

permitting the use of cotton glove liners in lieu of chemical-resistant

liners.

EPA remains convinced that leather gloves do not sufficiently

prevent pesticide exposure, and in many cases may pose a greater hazard

than if no gloves at all are worn. Since leather is virtually

impossible to decontaminate once impregnated with pesticide residues,

workers who wear such gloves are subjecting their hands to

uninterrupted contact with residues and are thus at increased risk of

pesticide-related problems. Agency experts also doubt the ability of

cotton liners to be an effective barrier to residues given the duration

and conditions under which the gloves would likely be worn. EPA notes

that obtaining chemical-resistant gloves of a quality and durability

appropriate for harvesting thorn-type roses is difficult at present.

However, several varieties of lightweight and disposable chemical-

resistant gloves and glove liners are currently available which EPA

believes, when worn under leather gloves, would not significantly

affect a worker's dexterity. EPA therefore continues to require the use

of either chemical-resistant gloves or leather gloves over chemical-

resistant glove liners under this exception.

Heat stress. Another concern expressed in the comments was that PPE

may increase workers' risk of heat stress. Information was presented

that suggested heat is a serious health threat to workers, particularly

those in fern operations.

Several growers commented that PPE would not pose a significant

heat problem for rose workers because of several mitigating factors.

These comments noted that temperature must be carefully regulated for

successful rose cultivation through use of fans and venting during hot

weather. One comment added that it is rare for temperatures in a rose

greenhouse to exceed 90 degrees. Comments also added that water for

drinking and decontamination is immediately available in virtually all

rose greenhouses. EPA believes that such conditions make it likely that

PPE will not pose the risk of heat-related illness to be expected for

workers in other crops.

Conclusions. EPA recognizes the potential risks of worker exposure

and heat stress during early-entry work; however, EPA believes that the

PPE required under the exception is feasible and likely to provide

adequate reduction of risks to workers in the rose industry. This is

based on several factors: PPE would be worn for only limited periods of

time; harvesters could work relatively efficiently while wearing the

required PPE; water for drinking and decontamination is immediately

available in most rose greenhouses; and the usual presence in rose

greenhouses of fans or other mechanical ventilation to provide some

cooling. Also, that the rose workforce is relatively stable and

frequently paid an hourly wage rather than a piece rate, contributes to

this determination.

Under this exception, EPA is requiring that early-entry workers

wear PPE listed on the pesticide product label for early-entry workers.

Early-entry PPE is generally equal to that which would be worn by

applicators of the chemical in question (minus respirators, since entry

is prohibited until the exposure level listed on the labeling has been

reached or any ventilation criteria established by the WPS or in the

labeling have been met). Additionally, under the conditions of this

exception, early-entry workers would be instructed how to put on, use,

and take off early-entry PPE, the importance of washing thoroughly

after removing PPE, and how to prevent, recognize, and give first aid

for heat-related illness.

2. 4-hour prohibition versus ``sprays dried and dusts settled.''

Several growers commented that the performance standard of ``sprays

have dried and dusts have settled'' is preferable to EPA's generic

entry prohibition of 4 hours after an application. Comments noted that

the ``sprays dried/dust settled'' standard is both more workable for

their industry and more protective of workers: sprays usually dry in 2

- 3 hours, but sometimes, in humid greenhouse conditions, may not be

dry until after more than 4 hours have elapsed.

Comments, both favoring and opposing the exception, cited

California regulations governing re-entry. The California Department of

Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) also submitted comments. California's

current regulations allow reentry for hand labor activities when sprays

have dried and dusts have settled for most toxicity category II and III

pesticides, and for six category I pesticides of importance to the

greenhouse industry. (These six category I pesticides are skin and eye

irritants.) Otherwise, entry is restricted for 24 hours following

application of a category I product. According to CDPR, ``These reduced

entry intervals are based on workers being protected by work clothes

and gloves, and instructions to shower at the end of the work period.''

EPA adopted the generic 4-hour period of no entry as a means of

removing personal judgment from the entry equation. Sprays dry at

different rates in different parts of a treated area, depending on

greenhouse conditions. Therefore, it is a difficult and subjective

decision as to when entry is permissible under a ``sprays dried''

standard. For this reason, the ``sprays dried'' standard is also

difficult to enforce. EPA continues to believe that there should be no

entry into freshly treated areas which would involve contact with

treated surfaces until the dusts or sprays have settled and some drying

or volatilization of the formulation has taken place--4 hours. Thus,

under this exception, EPA prohibits entry to treated areas for the

first 4 hours after an application. (Also, entry is not permitted until

any exposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any

ventilation criteria established by the WPS or in the labeling have

been met. In some cases this will exceed 4 hours.) EPA believes that

the conditions of this exception will protect workers from hazardous

pesticide exposures regardless of a pesticide's toxicity category.

3. 3 hours per worker per 24 hours limit. EPA proposed that each

worker could not exceed 3 hours of early entry in any 24-hour period.

The 3-hour limit was based on comments from Roses, Inc., on the

proposed WPS which stated that 3 hours per worker per 24 hours would

allow for most harvest needs and would limit worker exposure. Many

comments from growers recommended extending the amount of time a worker

may spend in a restricted area beyond 3 hours in a 24-hour period.

Several comments from rose growers suggested that normally 3 hours

per worker per 24-hour period would be sufficient to carry out

necessary harvesting during a restricted-entry interval. Most comments

noted, however, that an early-entry worker may need to harvest for more

than 3 hours during holiday harvest times. One comment stated that up

to 8 hours could be needed. A few comments recommended a weekly

standard rather than a 24-hour limit. Roses, Inc., also suggested that,

given the proposed PPE conditions, a time limit would not be necessary.

Some grower comments, however, indicated that the 3-hour limit would

not pose significant problems and that pesticide applications could be

scheduled around holiday harvests.

Comments opposing the exception raised the concern of worker non-

compliance: if harvesters are paid piece rate they will have a strong

economic incentive to exceed the 3-hour limit.

EPA is persuaded of the industry's economic need, given current

production practices, to harvest roses during restricted-entry

intervals, and recognizes that the time required to harvest roses

varies from greenhouse to greenhouse and depends on holiday demand.

Based on comments submitted by industry and knowledge of rose

cultivation practices, EPA will accept 3 hours to be the amount of time

needed to meet most harvest needs.

EPA points out that the effectiveness of PPE, upon which workers

will rely to prevent exposure, declines the longer equipment is worn.

Chemical resistance also decreases with time. Additionally, the longer

a worker wears PPE the more likely it becomes that the worker will

remove pieces as the PPE grows less comfortable. EPA believes an

individual should not exceed 3 hours of early-entry rose harvesting in

any 24-hour period. Therefore, the proposed 3-hour limit remains a

condition of the exception. Any employers allowing their workers to

exceed the 3-hour limit would be violating the WPS.

4. Decontamination facilities. Worker advocates commented that

decontamination supplies will be too expensive for many employers to

justify.

Growers have responded that, like PPE, decontamination supplies are

cheap relative to the value of crop lost due to entry restrictions.

Employers would therefore assume the cost of decontamination supplies

as a condition of the exception. Rose growers also commented that water

for drinking and decontamination are immediately available in virtually

all rose greenhouses.

EPA has decided that the proposed exception requirements for

decontamination should remain a condition of this exception.

5. Training and label information. EPA proposed that early-entry

workers be given the required basic safety training for workers and be

provided with label-specific information before any early-entry work

which involved contact with treated surfaces. Some comments submitted

by growers stated that the training and communication requirements were

extensive, and requested clarification.

EPA notes that the basic safety training for early-entry workers

under this exception is identical to the basic safety training for

other workers covered by the WPS, but early-entry workers must be

trained before the early-entry work. EPA has prepared the basic

materials and resources for worker training under the WPS and is

currently distributing these widely through the States, USDA

Cooperative Extension Service, and other training networks.

Additionally, EPA will provide copies of such training resources

directly to the rose industry to help facilitate training as required

under the exception.

Regarding the provision of label-specific information, EPA believes

that workers harvesting roses during an REI should be informed about

the hazards associated with the chemicals to which they could be

exposed. Early-entry workers may either read the product labeling or

the employer may inform the worker of the appropriate labeling

requirements. EPA believes this will not be unreasonably burdensome

given the potential value of the information to workers, and has

decided to maintain this as a condition of the exception.

6. Time limitation and alternative practices. Several comments

recommended a strict time limit, should an exception be granted, to

provide an incentive for developing and implementing alternative

practices.

The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)

stated in their comments that a time limit for an exception ``is an

appropriate tool to encourage the development and implementation of

alternative pest control methods which will result in greater worker

safety.''

In the preamble to the WPS, EPA stated that the elimination of

routine early entry for hand labor activities may ``force'' the

development of technology such as engineering controls, mechanical

harvesters, weeders, and pruners in crops where the timing of such

tasks is critical (57 FR 38116-38117, August 21, 1992). This exception

is intended as an interim measure which will allow growers time to

explore and implement early-entry alternatives which are appropriate

for cut rose production.

Several comments from both growers and worker advocates cited the

existence of alternatives which should reduce the need for early entry

within a few years. Examples of alternatives named in the comments

included lower toxicity chemicals with shorter REIs, biological

controls, engineering and technological advancements, genetic

engineering of resistant rose varieties, and cultural practices (such

as scheduling pesticide applications and work activities to avoid

conflicts). The key difference between the growers' and the worker

advocates' positions on alternatives was the extent to which they

believe such alternatives can be quickly and cost-effectively adopted

by industry.

The Farmworker Justice Fund presented information suggesting that

several alternatives, including biological controls and cultural

practices, have been studied and found to be effective in controlling

certain rose pests.

In 1988 Roses, Inc., estimated a 5-year to 7-year time frame for

the rose industry to develop alternatives to toxicity category I and II

pesticides. In 1992, Roses, Inc., commented that:

While some progress had been made, a lack of research funds and

pressures from subsidized and dumped low-cost rose imports have

seriously reduced profitability, making research and capital

investment funds extremely hard to obtain. Less toxic pesticides are

being used. Introduction of new materials is helping.... But, they

are still too few to answer our needs and let us rely only on Class

III materials.

New rose varieties being developed through genetic manipulation

with disease and pest resistance are another possibility cited by

Roses, Inc. While progress has been made, here again Roses, Inc.,

states they are still years away from rose plant introductions with

significant engineered insect and disease resistance.

Roses, Inc., noted that while certain biological controls are

promising, they often require a grower to make a sizable capital

investment to implement. They conclude that these alternatives need

more research, time, and money ``to let the substitute practices mature

as a real answer for our industry.''

The Society of American Florists suggested that EPA offer

incentives to growers who use less toxic pesticides. The Agency notes

that, to a large extent, the provisions of the WPS are the incentive:

growers who use primarily toxicity category III and IV products may not

need early entry and therefore would not have to provide PPE, etc., for

their harvesters.

One grower commented, ``With some planning and shifting personnel

we could keep early entry to a minimum.'' EPA lauds this as an

immediate, practical alternative. Information about rose cultivation

gathered by Agency experts suggests that in some cases roses can be cut

early with minimal loss in crop value, if properly stored and handled.

In general, for a complex and highly managed crop such as roses,

EPA believes industry will attempt to make adjustments in cultural

practices and pesticide use patterns to minimize losses.

A time limit will encourage development and implementation of safer

methods of pest control. EPA believes that time and research are needed

to develop sustainable alternatives to early entry, but that the

industry should aggressively work toward implementation of alternatives

that have been proven effective. EPA expects that much early entry can

be eliminated immediately through ``planning and shifting personnel'',

and that in 2 years other alternatives to toxicity category I and II

pesticides can be implemented.

Finally, while rose growers submitted sufficient information to

convince EPA that an early-entry prohibition could have a substantial

economic impact, EPA believes that the benefits, based on the limited

information presented, only justify an interim period for the growers

to adapt to the requirements of the WPS. Therefore, EPA has decided

that the exception for early entry for harvesting cut roses will expire

2 years from publication of this Notice.

EPA continues to believe that in most cases the most reliable and

effective means of risk reduction for harvesters is to keep them out of

treated areas until the expiration of the REI. However, because of the

potentially considerable economic benefits of an exception for the cut

rose industry, EPA has decided to grant a temporary exception. Until

this exception expires, PPE, safety training and provision of label

information, decontamination facilities, and time-in-treated-area

limits, etc., will be the primary means of mitigating early-entry

workers' pesticide exposure risk.

EPA will consider another exception for roses if the industry

submits a request supported by the full set of data required under

Sec. 170.112(e), including the feasibility of the conditions of this

exception, and can clearly demonstrate that an aggressive attempt to

develop and implement alternative practices was made during the period

of this exception.

D. Activities Not Included in the Exception

Many comments from growers urged the Agency to include tasks such

as watering, pruning, and disbudding in this exception, and to clarify

whether ``passing through'' a restricted area would be acceptable.

Farmworker advocates' comments recognized that while industry

comments had stated the need to harvest roses twice daily, 365 days per

year, insufficient evidence was provided to support early entry for

activities other than harvesting.

Sufficient evidence has not been presented to show that pruning and

disbudding could not be accomplished outside of normal restricted-entry

intervals. EPA believes these tasks can be accomplished without early

entry through coordinated planning and scheduling without undue

economic hardship for the industry.

In several rose greenhouses, automated or semi-automated irrigation

is becoming the norm. In such operations, watering may be accomplished

either without entry into the greenhouse or without contact with

treated surfaces in the greenhouse; such entry may be permitted under

Sec. 170.112(b).

EPA expects that passing through a treated area would be

permissible, in most cases, under Sec. 170.112(b), Exception for

activities with no contact, as long as the employer ensures the

conditions of Sec. 170.112(b)(1) and (2) are met, that is, the worker

will have no contact with treated surfaces, and no entry is allowed

until any inhalation exposure criteria or ventilation criteria have

been met.

E. Worker Compliance

As noted above, some comments raised concern over workers' possible

failure to observe the requirements of this exception. Comments from

growers expressed concern that employers are at risk of enforcement

action should their workers fail to follow directions to use the

required personal protective equipment or stay out of restricted areas.

EPA notes that responsibility for compliance with the general

requirements of the WPS as well as the conditions of this exception

rests with employers. While employers are prohibited from taking

retaliatory action against employees for attempting to comply with the

requirements of the WPS or this exception, the WPS does not prevent an

employer from disciplining a worker who fails to observe the employer's

instructions to use PPE, stay out of restricted areas, or other

directions relating to WPS requirements. Such action in no way

alleviates the responsibility of the employer to adhere to the

requirements of the WPS.

F. Other Issues

Some comments requested exceptions from provisions which are

outside the scope permitted by the exception process in

Sec. 170.112(e). Such requests included (1) a special exception from

oral notification and posting provisions, (2) use of barrier tape in

lieu of posting with the WPS warning sign, (3) special minor use

registration assistance, and (4) use of the exception process to revise

other provisions of the WPS. Since these requests are beyond the scope

of Sec. 170.112(e), they are not addressed here.

IV. Response to Other Cut Flower and Cut Fern Producers

For other cut flowers and cut ferns, EPA received very limited or

no information on (1) projected economic impacts of WPS entry

restrictions, (2) technical or financial viability of alternative

practices, and (3) the safety and feasibility of an exception. Evidence

submitted in some of the comments suggested that alternatives to early

entry exist for these other crops, and that an early-entry prohibition

would not cause economic repercussions great enough to outweigh the

risk to workers. Therefore, EPA has determined that an exception for

other cut flower and cut fern producers is not warranted at this time.

V. Terms of the Exception

This exception for harvesting cut roses is narrower than the

exception which was proposed by EPA in the August 21, 1992, Federal

Register (57 FR 38175) in that this exception extends only to

harvesting cut roses and expires after 2 years.

In April 1994, Congress enacted legislation which delays the

compliance date for some of the basic safety provisions of the WPS

until January 1, 1995. This legislation permits entry during an REI for

tasks relating to the production of agricultural plants, but explicitly

excludes hand labor activities, such as harvesting, from the permitted

tasks. EPA is including in the terms of this exception for rose

harvesting, some basic safety provisions which will be provided to all

workers covered by the WPS on January 1, 1995. These include provisions

for basic safety training, display of a safety poster, posting of

application information, decontamination, and emergency assistance.

Notwithstanding the 1994 legislation, agricultural employers taking

advantage of the exception announced in this Notice must comply with

the conditions of this exception. The 1994 legislation does not affect

the terms of this exception.

The terms of the exception are the same as those proposed in the

August 21, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 38175), with the exception

that a requirement has been added that agricultural employers who make

use of this exception inform their early-entry workers about the

exception, and that the exception is limited to 2 years. The basic

safety provisions described above also have been included.

EPA reserves the right to withdraw exceptions, including the

exception for cut roses, in accordance with Sec. 170.112(e)(6),

Withdrawing an exception, if the Agency receives information or any

other data that indicate the health risks posed by the exception are

unacceptable or if the Agency receives information that indicates the

exception is no longer necessary or prudent.

The exception described in this Notice may be used unless early

entry is expressly prohibited in product labeling. For example, some

labels prohibit entry--including entry that would otherwise be

permitted under the WPS and this exception--by any person other than

trained and equipped handlers performing handling tasks for specified

periods after the application. In such cases, during that period, early

entry to harvest roses is not permitted under this exception.

Exception for harvesting roses:

I. Conditions. Under this exception, a worker may enter a treated

area during a restricted-entry interval to harvest roses if the

agricultural employer ensures that the following requirements are met:

(a) No such entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following the

end of the application, and no such entry is allowed thereafter until

any inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached,

or any ventilation criteria on the labeling or, after January 1, 1995,

established by 40 CFR 170.110(c)(3), have been met.

(b) The time in treated areas during a restricted-entry interval

for any worker harvesting roses under this exception does not exceed 3

hours in any 24-hour period.

(c) The agricultural employer ensures that the worker, before

entering the treated area, either has read the product labeling or has

been informed, in a manner that the worker can understand, of all

labeling requirements related to human hazards or precautions, first

aid, symptoms of poisoning, personal protective equipment specified for

early entry, and any other labeling requirements related to safe use.

(d) The personal protective equipment specified on the product

labeling for early entry is provided to the worker. Such personal

protective equipment shall conform to the following standards:

(1) Personal protective equipment (PPE) means devices and apparel

that are worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides or

pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-

resistant suits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant

footwear, respiratory protection devices, chemical-resistant aprons,

chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear.

(2) Long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short

pants, shoes, socks, and other items of work clothing are not

considered personal protective equipment for the purposes of this

exception and are not subject to the requirements of this exception,

although pesticide labeling may require that such work clothing be worn

during some activities.

(3) When ``chemical-resistant'' personal protective equipment is

specified by the product labeling, it shall be made of material that

allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the

material during use.

(4) When ``waterproof'' personal protective equipment is specified

by the product labeling, it shall be made of material that allows no

measurable movement of water or aqueous solutions through the material

during use.

(5) When a ``chemical-resistant suit'' is specified by the product

labeling, it shall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece, chemical-

resistant garment that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except

head, hands, and feet.

(6) When ``coveralls'' are specified by the product labeling, they

shall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece garment, such as a cotton

or cotton and polyester coverall, that covers, at a minimum, the entire

body except head, hands, and feet. The pesticide product labeling may

specify that the coveralls be worn over a layer of clothing. If a

chemical-resistant suit is substituted for coveralls, it need not be

worn over a layer of clothing.

(7) Gloves shall be of the type specified by the product labeling.

Gloves or glove linings made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent

materials must not be worn for early-entry activities unless these

materials are listed on the product labeling as acceptable for such

use. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and

suppleness are not obtainable for tasks with roses or other plants with

sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn over chemical-resistant

liners. However, once leather gloves have been worn for this use,

thereafter they shall be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and

they shall not be worn for any other use.

(8) When ``chemical-resistant footwear'' is specified by the

product labeling, it shall be one of the following types of footwear:

chemical-resistant shoes, chemical-resistant boots, or chemical-

resistant shoe coverings worn over shoes or boots. If chemical-

resistant footwear with sufficient durability and a tread appropriate

for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable for workers, then leather

boots may be worn in such terrain.

(9) When ``protective eyewear'' is specified by the product

labeling, it shall be one of the following types of eyewear: goggles;

face shield; safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection; or

a full-face respirator.

(10) When ``chemical-resistant headgear'' is specified by the

product labeling, it shall be either a chemical-resistant hood or a

chemical-resistant hat with a wide brim.

(e) The agricultural employer ensures that:

(1) Workers wear the personal protective equipment correctly for

its intended purpose and use personal protective equipment according to

manufacturer's instructions.

(2) Before each day of use, all personal protective equipment is

inspected for leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and any damaged

equipment is repaired or discarded.

(3) Personal protective equipment that cannot be cleaned properly

is disposed of in accordance with any applicable Federal, State, and

local regulations.

(4) All personal protective equipment is cleaned according to

manufacturer's instructions or pesticide product labeling instructions

before each day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it

shall be washed thoroughly in detergent and hot water.

(5) Before being stored, all clean personal protective equipment is

dried thoroughly or is put in a well-ventilated place to dry.

(6) Personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides is

kept separately and washed separately from any other clothing or

laundry.

(7) Any person who cleans or launders personal protective equipment

is informed that such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides, of

the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides, and of the

correct ways to handle and clean personal protective equipment and to

protect themselves when handling equipment contaminated with

pesticides.

(8) All clean personal protective equipment is stored separately

from personal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas.

(9) Each worker is instructed how to put on, use, and remove the

personal protective equipment and is informed about the importance of

washing thoroughly after removing personal protective equipment.

(10) Each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and

first aid treatment of heat-related illness.

(11) Workers have a clean place away from pesticide-storage and

pesticide-use areas for storing personal clothing not in use; putting

on personal protective equipment at the start of any exposure period;

and removing personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure

period.

(12) That no worker is allowed or directed to wear home or to take

home personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides.

(f) When personal protective equipment is required by the labeling

of any pesticide for early entry, the agricultural employer ensures

that no worker is allowed or directed to perform the early-entry

activity (harvest roses) without implementing, when appropriate,

measures to prevent heat-related illness.

(g) The agricultural employer: (1) During early entry permitted

under this exception, provides early-entry workers with enough water

for routine washing and emergency eyeflushing.

(2) Ensures that: (i) At all times when the water is available to

workers, it shall be of a quality and temperature that will not cause

illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is

swallowed.

(ii) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing

pesticides, it shall not be used for decontamination or eyeflushing,

unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other

mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank.

(iii) Soap and single-use towels are provided at each

decontamination site in quantities sufficient to meet workers' needs.

(iv) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, at least 1 pint of water

shall be immediately available to each worker who is harvesting roses

if the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear for the early-

entry activity. The eyeflush water shall be carried by the early-entry

worker or shall be otherwise immediately accessible.

(v) The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible to and

not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working.

(vi) The decontamination site shall not be in an area being treated

with pesticides.

(vii) The decontamination site shall not be in an area that is

under a restricted-entry interval unless the decontamination site would

otherwise not be reasonably accessible to those workers.

(3) Decontamination after early-entry activities. At the end of any

exposure period for early-entry workers, the agricultural employer

provides, at the site where the workers remove personal protective

equipment, soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of water so that

the workers may wash thoroughly.

(h) Posted pesticide safety information. When early-entry workers

are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last 30 days, a

pesticide covered by the WPS has been applied on the establishment or a

restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the agricultural employer

displays, in accordance with this exception, pesticide safety

information.

(1) Safety poster. A safety poster is displayed that conveys, at a

minimum, the following basic pesticide safety concepts:

(i) Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides

that may be on plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from

nearby applications.

(ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or

using the toilet.

(iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide

residues (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat

or scarf).

(iv) Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on

clean clothes after work.

(v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing

them again.

(vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are

spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo,

and change into clean clothes.

(vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted

areas.

(viii) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers.

(2) Emergency medical care information. The name, address, and

telephone number of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall

be on the safety poster or displayed close to the safety poster, and

workers shall be informed promptly of any change to the information on

emergency medical care facilities.

(3) Location. The information shall be displayed in a central

location in the greenhouse where it can be readily seen and read by

workers.

(4) Accessibility. Early-entry workers shall be informed of the

location of the information and shall be allowed access to it.

(5) Legibility. The information shall remain legible during the

time it is posted.

(i) Providing specific information about applications. When early-

entry workers are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last

30 days, a pesticide covered by the WPS has been applied on the

establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the

agricultural employer displays, in accordance with this paragraph,

specific information about the pesticide.

(1) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The information shall

be displayed in the location specified for the pesticide safety poster

in paragraph (h)(3) and shall be accessible and legible, as specified

in paragraphs (h)(4) and (h)(5).

(2) Timing. (i) The information shall be posted before the

application takes place if early-entry workers will be on the

establishment during application. Otherwise, the information shall be

posted at the beginning of any worker's first work period involving

early entry.

(ii) The information shall continue to be displayed for at least 30

days after the end of the restricted-entry interval (or, if there is no

restricted-entry interval, for at least 30 days after the end of the

application) or at least until workers are no longer on the

establishment, whichever is earlier.

(3) Required information. The information shall include:

(i) The location and description of the treated area.

(ii) The product name, EPA registration number, and active

ingredients of the pesticide.

(iii) The time and date the pesticide is to be applied.

(iv) The restricted-entry interval for the pesticide.

(j) Notice about the exception for harvesting roses. The

agricultural employer:

(1) Notifies early-entry rose harvesters orally, before such

workers enter a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this

exception to allow workers to enter treated areas to harvest roses.

(2) Posts information about the terms and conditions of this

exception. The posted information shall convey the following

information:

(i) The establishment is operating under the conditions of the

exception for rose harvesting.

(ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following an

application, and until any exposure level has been reached or any

ventilation criteria have been met.

(iii) Time in treated areas for each worker may not exceed 3 hours

in any 24-hour period.

(iv) Decontamination and change areas must be provided.

(v) Basic safety training and label-specific information must be

provided to early-entry workers.

(vi) The personal protective equipment specified on the product

labeling for early-entry must be provided, cleaned, and maintained for

early-entry workers.

(vii) Early-entry workers must be instructed in how to put on, use,

and remove the personal protective equipment.

(viii) Measures to prevent heat stress must be implemented when

appropriate.

(ix) A pesticide safety poster and information about pesticide

applications must be displayed in a central location.

(x) The exception expires on June 10, 1996.

(3) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The posted information

shall be displayed in the location specified for the pesticide safety

poster in paragraph (h)(3) and shall be accessible and legible, as

specified in paragraphs (h)(4) and (h)(5).

(4) Timing. (i) The information shall be posted before early-entry

harvesting takes place and shall continue to be displayed as long as

the exception is used on the agricultural establishment.

(k) Pesticide safety training-- (1) General requirement. Before a

worker enters a treated area to harvest roses as permitted under this

exception, the agricultural employer ensures that the worker has been

trained in general pesticide safety according to paragraph (l).

(2) Exception. A worker who is currently certified as an applicator

of restricted-use pesticides under 40 CFR part 171 or who satisfies the

training requirements of part 171 or who satisfies the handler training

requirements under 40 CFR 170.230(c) need not be trained under this

paragraph.

(l) Training programs. (1) General pesticide safety information

shall be presented to workers either orally from written materials or

audiovisually. The information must be presented in a manner that the

workers can understand (such as through a translator) using

nontechnical terms. The presenter also shall respond to workers'

questions.

(2) The person who conducts the training shall meet at least one of

the following criteria:

(i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use

pesticides under 40 CFR part 171; or

(ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators

or pesticide handlers by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having

jurisdiction; or

(iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program

approved by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or

(iv) Satisfy the training requirements in 40 CFR part 171 or in 40

CFR 170.230(c).

(3) Any person who issues an EPA-approved Worker Protection

Standard worker training certificate must assure that the worker who

receives the training certificate has been trained in accordance with

(l)(4) of this paragraph.

(4) The training materials shall convey, at a minimum, the

following information:

(i) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during

work activities.

(ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure,

including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and

sensitization.

(iii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

(iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.

(v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.

(vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.

(vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including

emergency eyeflushing techniques.

(viii) Hazards from chemigation and drift.

(ix) Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.

(x) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.

(xi) Requirements of 40 CFR part 170 subpart B designed to reduce

the risks of illness or injury resulting from workers' occupational

exposure to pesticides.

(m) Verification of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph

(m)(2), if the agricultural employer ensures that a worker possesses an

EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard worker training certificate,

then the requirements of paragraphs (k) and (l) will have been met.

(2) If the agricultural employer is aware or has reason to know

that an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard worker training

certificate has not been issued in accordance with the conditions

described above, or has not been issued to the worker bearing the

certificate, a worker's possession of that certificate does not meet

the requirements of paragraph (k).

(n) Emergency assistance. If there is reason to believe that a

person who is or has been harvesting roses as permitted by this

exception has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides used

on the agricultural establishment, including, but not limited to,

exposures from application, splash, spill, drift, or pesticide

residues, the agricultural employer shall:

(1) Make available to that person prompt transportation from the

agricultural establishment, including any labor camp on the

agricultural establishment, to an appropriate emergency medical

facility.

(2) Provide to that person or to treating medical personnel,

promptly upon request, any obtainable information on:

(i) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredients

of any product to which that person might have been exposed.

(ii) Antidote, first aid, and other medical information from the

product labeling.

(iii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on

the agricultural establishment.

(iv) The circumstances of exposure of that person to the pesticide.

II. Definitions. The terms used in this exception have the same

meanings as they have in the Worker Protection Standard 40 CFR part

170.

III. Expiration. This exception expires June 10, 1996.

VI. List of Exceptions in 40 CFR 170.112

In the Final rule section of this Federal Register, EPA is amending

Sec. 170.112 of the WPS by adding a new paragraph (e)(7) identifying

the Federal Register citation and effective date for this

administrative exception for harvesting cut roses. In the future,

reference to other exceptions granted under Sec. 170.112(e) will also

be added to this new paragraph (e)(7) as exceptions are granted. EPA is

adding this cross-reference in Sec. 170.112(e), and EPA will ensure

that the regulated community is aware of, and able to locate, this and

future administrative exceptions and is aware of the terms and

conditions of the exceptions. The addition of paragraph (e)(7) to

Sec. 170.112 is a technical amendment. It does not make any substantive

changes in the WPS or in Sec. 170.112.

List of Subjects

Administratice practice and procedure, Labeling, Occupational

safety and health, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: June 3, 1994.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.

[FR Doc. 94-14180 Filed 6-9-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F