[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 111 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14180]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 10, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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