[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:
opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov. 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:
ager.sara@epamail.epa.gov.
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: ager.sara@epamail.epa.gov.
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:
opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov
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
