Cut-Roses; Request for Exception to Worker Protection Standard's Prohibition of Early Entry into Pesticide-Treated Areas to Harvest Roses by Hand Cutting

SUMMARY: EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) set restrictions on

agricultural worker entry into pesticide-treated areas. The WPS

established procedures for the Agency to grant exceptions to the

restriction placed on worker early entry into pesticide-treated areas

under 40 CFR 170.112. Roses, Inc. a rose-grower association, has

requested an exception to the WPS to allow workers to harvest roses by

hand before restricted entry intervals (REIs) have expired. An REI is

the amount of time after the end of a pesticide application during

which entry to the treated area is restricted. The exception request

covers all cut-rose production in greenhouses across the United States

and all pesticide products registered for use on roses. A previous

exception for this industry, granted on June 10, 1994, expired on June

10, 1996. Roses, Inc. has stated that, without such an exception, the

cut-rose industry cannot survive economically. This Notice acknowledges

receipt of Roses, Inc.'s request and invites comment on the substance

of the request.

Dates: Comments, data, or evidence in response to this Notice must be

received on or before November 29, 1996 .

ADDRESSES: The Agency invites any interested person to submit written

comments identified by docket number ``OPP-300164I'' to: By mail:

Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division

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

DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

Comments and data may also be submitted electronically (e-mail) to:

[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data

in electronic form must be identified by the docket number ``OPP-

300164''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Ager, Certification and

Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone number and e-mail address: (703) 305-7666, e-mail:

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Worker Protection Standard

Introduced in 1974, the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is

intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among

agricultural employees who may be exposed to pesticide residues.

Revised in 1992 by 57 FR 38102, the WPS covers agricultural employees

working in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses performing

hand-labor operations in areas treated with pesticides, as well as

pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle

pesticides. The WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety

training, notification of pesticide applications, use of personal

protective equipment (PPE), restricted entry intervals (REIs) following

pesticide application, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical

assistance.

B. Early-Entry Exceptions

In general, Sec. 170.112 of the WPS prohibits agricultural workers

from entering a pesticide-treated area during a REI. REIs are specified

on the pesticide product label and typically range from 4 to 72 hours

with some pesticides having longer REIs.

Under specified conditions, the WPS contains the following

exceptions to the general prohibition against worker entry into treated

areas during the REI:

(1) Entry resulting in no contact with treated surfaces.

(2) Entry for short-term tasks (less than 1 hour) that do not

involve hand labor, to be performed by workers wearing required early-

entry PPE and meeting other standards.

(3) Entry to perform tasks associated with agricultural

emergencies.

Under Sec. 170.112(e) of the WPS, EPA may establish additional

exceptions to the provision restricting early entry to perform routine

hand-labor tasks. The WPS defines hand labor as any agricultural

activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to

have substantial contact with treated surfaces (such as plants or soil)

that may contain pesticide residues. Section 170.112(e) of the WPS

specifies information that must be included in a request for exception,

and the process for granting an exception. When a request is received,

EPA will issue a public notice and allow at least 30 days for

interested parties to comment. EPA will then grant or deny the

exception request based on a risk-benefit analysis as required by 40

CFR 170.112(e)(3).

C. Status of 1994 Cut-Rose Exception

On August 21, 1992 (57 FR 38102), EPA proposed to grant an

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

fern industries. On June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30265), EPA granted an

exception that allowed, under specified conditions, early entry into

pesticide-treated areas in greenhouses for a maximum of 3 hours during

a 24-hour period to harvest roses by hand cutting. EPA denied a similar

exception for cut-flower and cut-fern industries based on insufficient

information to warrant an exception.

While rose growers submitted sufficient information to convince EPA

that the early-entry restrictions under the WPS could have a

substantial economic impact, EPA stated that it expected growers to

gradually adapt to the WPS. EPA stated that this exception was granted

specifically to provide cut-rose producers time to adjust pesticide

spray schedules, invest in engineering controls, and develop technology

and other safe alternatives to early entry. EPA believed that early

entry under the terms of the exception for a 2-year period would not

pose unreasonable adverse effects to rose harvesters. EPA believed that

the benefits justified an interim exception during which growers would

learn to adapt to the requirements of the WPS. Therefore, EPA limited

the exception to 2 years, with an expiration date of June 10, 1996.

EPA noted in its 1994 decision that, if the cut-rose industry

determined that the industry needed an exception beyond 2 years, the

industry would 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). In a letter dated August 1994 to

Roses, Inc. the Agency stated that, in order to consider a cut-rose

exception in the future, specific information would be needed on worker

exposure, poisoning incidents, PPE feasibility, and data on how WPS

early-entry restrictions affect the economics of rose production.

In its request to the Agency on May 16, 1996, Roses, Inc. asked EPA

to extend the 1994 exception and, prior to major floral holidays, to

increase the time a worker would be allowed to

[[Page 56101]]

perform early-entry activities from 3 hours to 8 hours in a 24-hour

period. Since there was insufficient information to support the request

to renew the exception and with insufficient time to administratively

process the request, the existing exception expired on June 10, 1996.

On June 14, 1996, Roses, Inc. requested that the Agency issue an

Administrative Order that would give rose growers protection from WPS

enforcement related to early-entry harvesting. Lacking both the

necessary information and the time to conduct the necessary risk-

benefit analysis to make a determination on worker risk, EPA declined

to issue such an order. Rose growers were required to fully comply with

the WPS when the 1994 cut-rose exception expired.

Through written correspondence, telephone calls, and meetings with

Roses, Inc., conversations with industry and academic experts on the

production of cut roses, first-hand observations in cut-rose

greenhouses and discussions with growers, the Agency obtained

sufficient information to support publication of this Notice of Receipt

of Roses, Inc.'s request and to provide a 30-day public comment period.

II. Summary of Roses, Inc.'s Exception Request

A. Basis for Requesting a WPS Early-Entry Exception

According to Roses, Inc., without an early-entry exception allowing

for harvest of cut roses two times per day, cut-rose growers will lose

a significant portion of their crop. Roses, Inc. explains that

commercial quality standards demand that roses be cosmetically perfect

and at a bloom stage were the bud is just beginning to open. Roses,

Inc. notes that, to meet such standards, pesticides must be used to

control insects and disease and harvesting must occur at least twice

daily to capture flowers at the appropriate bloom stage. Roses, Inc.

states that cut roses that are not capable of meeting these standards

have no economic value. Roses, Inc. asserts that the required twice

daily harvest is not possible on days when pesticides with an REI

greater than 4 hours have been applied, since the WPS early-entry

restriction eliminates the possibility of a second harvest and may,

depending on the REI, eliminate additional harvests for subsequent

days.

B. Exception Terms Proposed by Roses, Inc.

Roses, Inc.'s request for an exception asked to continue the terms

of the 1994 exception but to increase the early entry exposure period

from 3 to 8 hours in a 24-hour period just prior to major floral

holidays. Roses, Inc. identified the five major floral holidays as:

Christmas (December), Valentine's Day (February), Secretary's Day

(April), Mother's Day (May), and Sweetest Day (October). Specifically,

Roses, Inc. proposed the following terms:

(1) For all products registered for use on roses, early entry to

harvest roses by hand is allowed, under the following conditions:

(a) The time in the treated area during an REI does not exceed 3

hours in any 24-hour period, (except as provided in (b)).

(b) For 2 weeks before major floral holidays, the time in the

treated area must not exceed 8 hours in any 24-hour period.

(c) No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours and until inhalation/

ventilation criteria on the label has been reached.

(d) The early-entry PPE specified on the product label must be used

by workers.

(e) The agricultural employer must properly maintain PPE.

(f) The agricultural employer must take steps to prevent heat

stress.

(g) The worker must read the label or be informed of labeling

requirements related to safe use.

(h) Application specific information must be provided.

(i) A pesticide safety poster must be displayed.

(j) Decontamination supplies must be provided.

(k) Workers must be WPS trained.

(l) Workers must be notified orally and information posted

regarding the exception.

(2) Exception has no expiration or, at minimum, expires in 5 years.

(Note: Terms c through l are currently required by the WPS for all

early-entry work activities.)

These proposed terms and conditions are the same as those imposed

with the 1994 exception, with the addition of a longer maximum early-

entry time period prior to major floral holidays, and an extended

effective period. According to Roses, Inc., there are five major floral

holidays resulting in peak production periods beyond the normal year-

round production. The holidays include: Christmas (December),

Valentine's Day (February), Secretary's Day (April), Mother's Day

(May), and Sweetest Day (October).

After discussions with the Agency, Roses, Inc. proposed a

refinement of the terms of their request. Roses, Inc. proposed, in

addition to the terms above, the following:

(1) For products with a 12-hour REI on the label, allow early entry

to harvest roses under the following conditions:

(a) The time in the treated area for each worker may not exceed 4

hours in any 12-hour REI period.

(b) Conditions (b) through (l) above.

(2) For products with an REI of 24 hours or more, allow early entry

to harvest roses under the following conditions:

(a) Must meet all the early-entry conditions for the 12-hour REI

pesticide products listed above.

(b) During the first 12 hours of the REI period, early-entry

workers would be required to wear additional PPE consisting of canvas

(or similar material) arm sleeve protectors and a waterproof apron that

protects the upper torso and reaches to approximately knee level.

C. Background on the Rose Industry

The USDA 1995 Floriculture Crops Report estimates the farm gate

value of the U.S. greenhouse rose crop at approximately $124 million.

Roses, Inc. estimates that 200 cut-rose growers cultivate more than 15

million rose plants in the U.S. with the majority of growers located in

California. Roses, Inc. estimates that the industry has 1,580

greenhouse production workers. Of these workers, 1,190 (75%) are

harvesters. Rose harvesting takes place throughout the year and

requires training in harvesting techniques. Roses, Inc. maintains that

the turnover rate of harvesters is low.

According to Roses, Inc., rose varieties reach the harvest stage in

cycles, with a single plant producing approximately 24 roses per year.

Roses, Inc. explains that the commercial quality standards demand that

roses be cosmetically perfect and at a bloom stage where the bud is

just beginning to open. Roses, Inc. notes that, to meet such standards,

pesticides must be used to control insects and disease. Roses, Inc.

notes that a rose will remain at the most commercially valuable stage

of bud opening for only several hours. Thus harvesting must occur at

least twice daily to cut flowers that can be sold at a premium price.

Roses, Inc. also states that roses which have not been cut at the

proper bud stage are practically without commercial value.

Because roses have a short shelf life and cannot be stored to meet

floral holiday demands, Roses, Inc. states that increased production to

meet holiday demands is accomplished with prune and pinch practices.

Using this labor intensive method, normal production can be doubled.

Roses, Inc. requested early entry for up to 8 hours within a

[[Page 56102]]

24-hour period 2 weeks prior to the major floral holidays.

The major rose insect and disease problems identified by Roses,

Inc. include: aphids, botrytis, downy mildew, powdery mildew, spider

mites, thrips, and whiteflies. Roses, Inc. provided a list of chemicals

commonly used to combat these problems. EPA requested that Roses, Inc.

provide a list of chemicals, with 24- to 48-hour REIs, that the rose

industry believed to be essential for their industry. Roses, Inc.

identified the following 28 active ingredients as essential to the rose

industry: abamectin, acephate, bifenthrin, chlorothalonil,

chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, diazinon, dichlorvos, dienochlor, endosulfan,

fenarimol, fenoxycarb, fenpropathrin, fluvalinate, iprodione,

kinoprene, mancozeb, myclobutanil, naled, nicotine, piperalin,

pyridaben, resmethrin, sulfotepp, thiophanate-methyl, triadimefon,

triflumazole, and vinclozolin. In addition, Roses, Inc. submitted a

list of 15 alternative active ingredients to address resistance issues

and to supplement the pesticides identified as essential.

D. Economic Impacts

Information submitted for the 1994 cut-rose exception request

estimated annual revenue losses from $22,000 to $50,000 per acre as a

result of REIs imposed by the WPS, should no exception be granted.

Roses, Inc. estimated in 1994 an average annual loss of $35,000 per

acre for rose growers nationally. No new estimates or actual losses

experienced between June 10, 1996, and today have been provided to the

Agency. With Roses, Inc.'s 1996 estimate that the average rose grower

across the U.S. has 3 acres of rose production, an average annual loss

of $11,500 to $36,600 per acre per grower would result in a national

projection of $34,500 to $109,400 annual loss per rose grower.

The estimated losses of $11,500 to $36,600 per acre are derived

from a predicted loss of the equivalent of one harvest per week due to

compliance with the WPS and are calculated using average July prices

for selected Tea roses in California and New England. These figures

appear to be based on the frequency that Roses, Inc. estimates

pesticides are normally applied in rose production, the toxicity

categories of the pesticides most commonly used on roses, and the

asserted need to harvest roses two times per day to ensure the

harvested crop will yield a premium price.

In response to the Agency's inquiry about typical spray schedules,

Roses, Inc. reported that, on average, growers reported 6.3 pesticide

applications per month with an average application time of 2 hours.

Roses, Inc. explained that the industry does not have typical annual

spray schedules due to holistic management procedures, differing levels

of diagnostic expertise, the different products available for each pest

or pathogen, the difference in pests or pathogens among greenhouses,

changes in weather patterns, and the different pests that may be found

in surrounding agricultural fields.

In response to the Agency's inquiry regarding progress in adopting

safe alternatives to early entry since 1994, Roses, Inc. noted a number

of factors which influenced slower progress than expected by the

industry. Roses, Inc. cited the increased cost of pesticide product

development and registration as a major factor in limiting the number

of new pesticides coming on the market for greenhouse roses. In

addition, Roses, Inc. stated that some manufacturers do not find

pursuing the registration of their materials for use on cut roses to be

economically viable due to the small size of the cut-rose industry.

Roses, Inc. noted that with the loss of registered products used

routinely before 1988 and a limited number of new pesticides being made

available for rose production, pesticide-resistant pest populations are

increasing. Furthermore, Roses, Inc. states that growers do not want to

rely on a specific set of chemicals, such as those with shorter REIs,

because resistant pest populations will build more quickly increasing

the need for new products. Roses, Inc. also states that the rose

industry has new insect problems, such as the western flower thrip.

Treatment for the western flower thrip also kills the predators and

parasites that may have been introduced to control other pests.

EPA asked Roses, Inc. to provide information on environmental and

disease control measures designed to keep rose foliage dry and prevent

fungal infection. A number of pesticides identified by Roses, Inc. are

intended to control fungal diseases such as downy mildew and powdery

mildew. These fungal diseases begin and spread more rapidly where plant

foliage remains wet or humidity is very high for extended periods.

Active drying of foliage would also facilitate possible application of

pesticides at times when foliage would otherwise dry too slowly. Roses,

Inc. stated that, in general, these methods have either large start-up

costs, are expensive to use or both.

Non-chemical pest control methods that Roses, Inc. discussed

include: high intensity discharge lighting, horizontal air flow fans,

night curtains, infrared radiant heat lines, and step dehumidification.

Roses, Inc. reports that the high intensity discharge lighting is not

used by many growers because the cost of electricity is prohibitive.

Horizontal air flow fans are widely used in the Eastern United States

and less in the Southwest. Roses, Inc. states that Southwest growers

are under greater financial constraints because of the expense of

transporting the roses to the Eastern markets. Roses, Inc. states that

growers cannot justify the expense of night curtains that prevent

radiant energy loss from foliage. Infrared radiant heat lines and step

dehumidification are not commonly used due to the prohibitive start-up

costs. According to Roses, Inc., without such infrastructure

investments, alternatives such as rearranging work schedules of

harvesters or rearranging spray schedules are not viable options for

growers. Roses, Inc. also states that imported roses currently hold 66%

of the total U.S. cut-rose market thus reducing profits and further

increasing financial constraints on the grower's ability to install

physical barriers, supplemental lighting, and other environmental

controls.

With current practices largely unchanged since EPA's consideration

of the first exception in 1994, it is again clear that without an

exception to early-entry prohibitions, rose growers are required 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' profit at least in

the short run. Given the high per acre value of rose production and the

information submitted by Roses, Inc. in 1994 and 1996, EPA believes

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

substantial. EPA needs documentation on the actual losses incurred as a

result of the REIs of the WPS, since the expiration of the previous

cut-rose exception on June 10, 1996. For example, commenters could

present data for situations where the exception was needed in 1996 and

identify the pest incident, the number of plants infected, the

chemicals needed (applied), the quantity and value of cut roses lost

and the length of time of the occurrence. With 3 months of data--

including one of the major floral holidays (Sweetest Day)--EPA can more

accurately project the quantitative

[[Page 56103]]

economic impacts of denying a new exception to rose growers at this

time.

E. Potential Risks

Roses, Inc. reported that their growers reported applying

pesticides 6.3 times per month. Roses, Inc. explained that the industry

does not have typical annual spray schedules due to holistic management

procedures, differing levels of diagnostic expertise, the different

products available for each pest or pathogen, the difference in pests

or pathogens among different greenhouses, the changes in weather

patterns, and the different pests that may be found in surrounding

agricultural fields.

Roses, Inc.'s May 1996 formal request sought an extension of the

1994 WPS cut-rose exception. The 1994 exception included all products

used in the cut-rose industry. At EPA's request, Roses, Inc. provided a

list of commonly used chemicals. Of those chemicals, Roses, Inc.

identified the following 28 active ingredients as essential pesticides

for controlling prevalent disease or insect pests of greenhouse grown

roses: abamectin, acephate, bifenthrin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos,

cyfluthrin, diazinon, dichlorvos, dienochlor, endosulfan, fenarimol,

fenoxycarb, fenpropathrin, fluvalinate, iprodione, kinoprene, mancozeb,

myclobutanil, naled, nicotine, piperalin, pyridaben, resmethrin,

sulfotepp, thiophanate-methyl, triadimefon, triflumazole, and

vinclozolin. These chemicals have REIs ranging from 12-48 hours. In

addition, Roses, Inc. submitted a list of 15 alternative active

ingredients to address resistance issues and to supplement the

pesticides identified as essential. .

Products used in the cut-rose industry have many risk concerns

associated with them. Many of the chemicals identified by Roses, Inc.

as essential to production are classified by EPA in Toxicity Categories

I and II, based on their acute toxicity. Acute toxicity is the

capability of producing adverse effects from a brief exposure. Products

containing these Toxicity I and II chemicals are assigned longer REIs

in response to acute effect concerns.

Laboratory animal studies of some Toxicity Category I and II

chemicals demonstrated other effects associated with long-term

exposure, such as increased cancer rates, reproductive and

developmental effects and effects on the nervous system. Routine

repeated occupational exposures (that would occur during early-entry

rose harvesting) become a greater risk concern when the chemicals can

pose long-term effects. Delayed, chronic and subchronic effects are

generally not reported as pesticide-related incidents because of the

time between exposure and effect.

With an average of one greenhouse production worker for every

12,000 rose plants in production, a worker could spend a substantial

portion of the typical 8-hour workday cutting roses. EPA's observations

of greenhouses with active rose harvesting confirmed that workers have

considerable contact with plant foliage. Typically, the workers' hands

and forearms touch the rose plants and there is some lesser degree of

contact with their upper torso and legs. In order to prevent injury

from thorns on the rose bushes, the workers usually wear a leather or

other heavy duty sleeve on one arm and leather gloves. EPA lacks data

to establish how much contact with pesticide-treated surfaces occurs

during rose cutting.

Roses, Inc. and individual California rose growers have offered

information to demonstrate that rose harvesters do not experience

unacceptable risks from pesticide exposure. Roses, Inc. submitted an

analysis of pesticide poisoning incidents collected by the State of

California, under their mandatory reporting law. These analyses showed

that few incidents involved greenhouse workers (of whom rose harvesters

are a subgroup) and that for some of the incidents, pesticides were not

conclusively established to be the cause. In addition, a California

rose grower provided testimony that worker compensation claims by his

sector were significantly lower than in other agricultural and

industrial sectors, thus indicating the comparative safety of pesticide

use.

The Agency regards this information as useful, but limited. In

particular, both pesticide poisoning reports and worker's compensation

claims capture primarily adverse effects that are the consequence of

brief exposures. Neither is a completely reliable indication of the

potential for delayed risks. Most agricultural worker compensation

claims result from non-pesticide related injuries. Moreover, many of

the symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning resemble common symptoms of

the flu or colds, and these incidents may not be recognized as caused

by pesticides.

IV. Comments Solicited

The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and

information on this exception request. The Agency particularly welcomes

comments supported by information that would contribute to a better

understanding of the economic costs to the rose industry from full WPS

compliance with particular regard to REIs and the risk to workers from

allowing early entry for harvesting.

By promulgating the WPS rule in 1992, the Agency made the decision

that, in general, the costs of implementing the WPS were justified by

the decreased risk to workers that the WPS restrictions provided. In

requesting an exception for rose harvesting, Roses, Inc. argues that,

in this particular industry, the costs of WPS compliance outweigh the

worker risks avoided. Through public comment, the Agency is seeking

information to supplement the Roses, Inc. request and to further

improve the risk-benefit analysis. The information being sought is

described in further detail below. Commenters are encouraged to provide

comments on all or any portions of the information sought by the

Agency.

A. Need for an Exception

The Agency is interested in obtaining information regarding the

need for another exception and whether such an exception, if any,

should be broader than the 1994 exception. The Agency would like to

estimate the cost to the rose industry of complying with the REIs

specified on product labeling and compare that cost to expected profit

to determine economic feasibility.

Information that would be valuable to the Agency includes:

(1) Average cost of production and annual budget information.

(2) Estimates of the impact on yield, quality, price, revenue, and

production costs per acre of cut roses when a pest problem occurs and a

grower:

(a) Reschedules the timing of treatment application with current

pesticides and/or reschedules harvesting to meet the REI requirements.

(b) Substitutes pesticides with products with shorter REIs and

harvests twice a day.

(c) Uses non-chemical pest control methods and harvests twice a

day.

(d) Experiences losses due to pests (no control) and harvests twice

a day.

(e) Experiences losses by harvesting less than once or twice daily

and not modifying treatment schedules or pesticides applied.

(3) Need for an exception during different harvesting periods, such

as prior to major floral holidays.

(4) The shelf life of roses.

B. Risk

The Agency is also interested in information which will improve its

ability to estimate the risk to the workers of increased exposure to

pesticide residues during any early entry harvesting performed under an

exception.

[[Page 56104]]

1. Chemical list. The Agency has not conducted an in-depth analysis

of the potential risk of each of the chemicals identified by Roses,

Inc. as essential. Of the chemicals identified by Roses, Inc. only one,

piperalin, has been through EPA's reregistration process. EPA is

interested in determining which products are needed the most, possible

alternatives to these products including advantages and disadvantages,

and which products' REIs are most problematic. A prioritization of

chemicals needed for rose growers would assist the Agency in developing

a list of chemicals that may meet the risk-benefit criteria necessary

for granting an exception. If possible, typical or average spray

schedules for growers will aid in identifying the most commonly used

chemicals as well as aiding in estimation of productions costs.

2. Personal protective equipment. The Agency is interested in

learning about the extent of compliance with the PPE requirements

during the 2-year period of the 1994 WPS cut-rose exception. This

information will assist EPA in determining the feasibility for workers

to wear the required PPE. The Agency welcomes comments that address:

(a) The length of time harvesters entered treated areas under an

REI.

(b) Whether workers wore early-entry PPE listed on the label.

(c) If workers found the required early-entry PPE uncomfortable to

wear in the greenhouse.

(d) If any difficulties were experienced in cleaning and

maintaining PPE.

3. Worker risk. The Agency is especially interested in information

that would provide insight on the potential risk to cut-rose harvesters

if an exception were granted. The Agency is interested in information

that addresses all aspects of worker risk, both acute and chronic

effects. This information will assist the Agency in establishing the

potential risk to workers. Information sought by EPA includes:

(a) Incidents requiring medical treatment due to exposure to

pesticides registered for roses.

(b) Exposure data for cut-rose harvesters.

(c) Foliar dislodgeable residue data of pesticides registered for

use on roses.

(d) Any exposure studies conducted on hand harvesters of cut roses

or other crops.

(e) Any mitigation measures that have or would reduce worker

exposure.

(f) Whether workers are paid an hourly wage or piece rate.

C. Possible Exception Terms

The Agency is also requesting comment on possible terms and

restrictions of any exception including their effect on the risk to

workers and cost of compliance. If an exception were granted, the

Agency is likely to require that the conditions of WPS

Sec. 170.112(c)(3) through (c)(9) continue to be met. These

requirements include:

(1) No entry takes place for the first 4 hours after the

application and thereafter until any inhalation exposure level listed

on the label has been reached or any ventilation criteria established

by the Sec. 170.110(c)(3) have been met.

(2) The PPE required for early entry is provided, cleaned and

maintained for the worker.

(3) The required basic training and label-specific information has

been furnished.

(4) Measures to prevent heat-related illness are implemented, when

appropriate.

(5) Decontamination and change areas are provided.

EPA is considering requiring all cut-rose growers intending to use

the exception to provide written notification before using the

exception and to include a list of products that they routinely use to

the State Lead Agency. In addition, the Agency may require cut-rose

growers to keep records of date, time of application, number of workers

entering the treated area and to report any incidents involving

possible pesticide exposure to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.

The Agency would also like comment on the following possible

options or restrictions:

(1) The length of time or number of times a worker could perform

early-entry hand-labor work.

(2) If an exception greater than 4 hours is granted, a requirement

that workers decontaminate and change into fresh PPE after each 4-hour

period of harvesting.

(3) An exception for all chemicals registered on cut roses.

(4) An exception limited to specific chemicals.

(5) An exception that could only be used a limited number of times,

e.g., four times per month.

(6) An exception that could only be used for the harvesting period

prior to some or all of the five major floral holidays.

(7) An exception that would incorporate a combination of the above

alternatives.

(8) The length of time an exception should be valid.

D. Consultations

During the public comment period, EPA is planning a meeting with

cut-rose growers and harvesters that are interested in discussing key

issues, clarifications and possible mitigation measures. All

information obtained from these meetings will be recorded in the public

docket. Information on accessing the docket is presented in Unit VI. of

this document. For further information regarding these meetings

contact: Sara Ager, Certification and Occupational Safety Branch

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone number and e-mail

address: (703) 305-7666, e-mail: [email protected].

VI. Public Record

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this

action. Comments must bear a notation indicating the docket control

number [OPP-300164I]. A record has been established for this action

under docket number ``OPP-300164I'' (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described below). a public version of this

record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public

Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:

[email protected]

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form of encryption.

The official record for the action as well as the public version,

as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received electronically into paper form as they

are received and will place the paper copies in the official record

which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The

official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the

location indictated above.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Occupational safety and health,

Pesticides and pests.

[[Page 56105]]

Dated: October 24, 1996.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.

[FR Doc. 96-27827 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F