[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