[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56100-56105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27827]



[[Page 56099]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 30, 1996 / 
Notices  

[[Page 56100]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-300164I; FRL-5571-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of exception request; request for comment.

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

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