[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51994-52002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26321]



[[Page 51993]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 170



Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Administrative Exception for Cut-
Rose Hand Harvesting; Administrative Decision; Proposed Rule



Exception Decisions to Early Entry Prohibition, Worker Protection 
Standard; Technical Amendment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 51994]]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250121; FRL-5599-2]
RIN 2070-AC95


Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Administrative Exception 
for Cut-Rose Hand Harvesting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Administrative Exception Decision.

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

SUMMARY: With this document, EPA is announcing it has granted a limited 
administrative exception to the 1992 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 
restrictions on early entry into pesticide-treated areas allowing 
workers to hand harvest roses during restricted entry intervals. Under 
Sec. 170.112 (e) of the WPS, EPA may establish exceptions to the 
provision prohibiting early entry to perform routine hand-labor tasks. 
EPA is granting the exception because if the rose harvests are delayed, 
significant economic loss will occur; and, if the terms of this 
exception are followed, the contact with pesticide-treated surfaces 
will be minimal. The exception allows workers to enter for three hours 
per 24-hour period during a restricted entry interval. Thus, EPA 
granted this exception because it believes the benefits of this 
exception outweigh any resulting risks. The exception took effect on 
December 18, 1996, and expires on October 4, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This document is effective October 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Ager, Office of Pesticide 
Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail 
address: Rm. 1121, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7666, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#72131517005c01130013321702131f131b1e5c1702135c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75141210075b061407143510051418141c195b1005145b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice is issued under the authority of 
section 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a). Under FIFRA, EPA is authorized to 
mitigate unreasonable adverse effects that may result from exposure to 
pesticides, taking into account the risks of pesticide exposure to 
human health and the environment and the benefits of pesticide use to 
society and the economy. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, EPA is amending Sec. 170.112 of the WPS to include reference 
to this administrative exception and its effective date.

I. Background

A. Worker Protection Standard

    Introduced in 1974, the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is 
intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among 
agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide residues, and to 
reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among pesticide 
handlers who may face more hazardous levels of exposure. Updated in 
1992, the WPS scope now includes workers performing hand-labor 
operations in fields treated with pesticides, workers in or on farms, 
forests, nurseries and greenhouses, and pesticide handlers who mix, 
load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides. The WPS contains 
requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide 
application, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), restricted 
entry intervals (REI) following pesticide application, decontamination 
supplies, and emergency medical assistance.

B. WPS Early Entry Restrictions

    The 1992 WPS includes provisions under Sec. 170.112 prohibiting 
agricultural workers from entering a pesticide-treated area to perform 
routine hand-labor tasks during an REI. Hand labor is defined by the 
WPS 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. The REI 
is the time after the end of a pesticide application when entry into 
the treated area is restricted as specified on the pesticide product 
label.

C. WPS Exceptions to Early Entry Restrictions

    Currently, the WPS only permits worker entry during the REI for the 
following purposes: (a) Entry resulting in no contact with treated 
surfaces; (b) entry allowing short-term tasks (less than 1 hour) to be 
performed with PPE and other protections; and (c) entry to perform 
tasks associated with agricultural emergencies. Under the ``no 
contact'' and ``short-term task'' exceptions, workers performing early-
entry work are not permitted to engage in hand labor.
    Under Sec. 170.112(e) of the WPS, EPA may establish additional 
exceptions to the provision prohibiting early entry to perform routine 
hand-labor tasks. EPA grants or denies a request for an exception based 
on a risk-benefit analysis as required by FIFRA. On June 10, 1994 (59 
FR 30265) (FRL-4779-8), EPA granted an exception that allowed, under 
specified conditions, early entry into pesticide-treated areas in 
greenhouses to harvest cut roses. This exception expired on June 10, 
1996. On May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21955, FRL-4950-4) (60 FR 21960, FRL-4950-
5), two additional exceptions were granted that allow early entry to 
perform irrigation and limited contact tasks under specified 
conditions.

D. Summary of Roses Inc.'s Petition

    Roses Inc., a rose grower association, approached the Agency in the 
spring of 1996 and expressed a need for continuing the WPS cut-rose 
exception. According to Roses Inc., an early-entry exception to allow 
the harvest of cut roses twice a day is necessary for cut-rose growers 
to avoid the loss of significant portions of their crop.
    Roses Inc. explained that commercial quality standards demand that 
roses be cosmetically perfect and at a bloom stage where the bud is 
just beginning to open. To meet such standards, Roses Inc. noted that 
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. asserted that cut roses that do not meet these 
standards have no economic value. Roses Inc. also asserted 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 restrictions eliminate the possibility of a second harvest 
and may, depending on the REI, eliminate both harvests for the second 
day.
    After consulting with the rose industry and gathering information 
to complete the exception request, EPA determined that the request met 
the requirements of Sec. 170.112(e)(1) and published a notice in the 
Federal Register on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 56100) (FRL-5571-8). The 
notice acknowledged receipt of Roses Inc.'s request, described terms 
proposed by the cut-rose industry, and provided a 30-day comment 
period. After considering the information obtained through public 
dialogue and written comments, EPA granted a limited administrative 
exception. In December 1996, EPA sent a letter to cut-rose growers 
outlining the terms of this new exception. This action documents the 
contents of the December letter.

E. Roses Inc.'s Proposed Terms

    Roses Inc.'s request for an exception asked for continuance of the 
terms of

[[Page 51995]]

the 1994 exception and an increase of the early entry exposure period 
from 3 to 8 hours in a 24-hour period just prior to major floral 
holidays. 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 after 
inhalation/ventilation criteria on the label has been reached.
    d. The early entry personal protective equipment (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. Pesticide 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.
    These proposed terms and conditions were the same as those imposed 
with the 1994 exception with the addition of a longer early-entry time 
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. The holidays are Valentine's Day 
(February), Easter (April), Mother's Day (May), Sweetest Day (October) 
and Christmas (December).
    After discussions with the Agency, Roses Inc. proposed a refinement 
of the terms of their request. In addition to the terms above, Roses 
Inc. proposed 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 a canvas or 
similar arm sleeve protectors, and a waterproof apron that protects the 
upper torso and reaches to approximately knee level.

II. Summary of Comments Received and Major Issues

    EPA received more than 50 comments on the proposed cut-rose 
exception. Comments were received from approximately 38 individual cut-
rose growers, 9 agricultural associations, 3 government agencies, 3 
academicians and 2 farmworker advocacy groups. More than 20 statements 
were also received from employees of cut-rose growers. Some of these 
statements were included with certain growers' submittals. A summary of 
the major issues and EPA's response is provided below.

A. Economic Need for the Exception

    The cut-rose market depends on the production of high-quality, 
unblemished roses to achieve consumer acceptance and thus compete with 
foreign producers. Since roses are an aesthetic commodity, 
imperfections such as pest damage are not tolerated. Market demands 
establish the high quality standards that rose growers must meet. The 
wholesale flower market demands a cosmetically perfect rose that is 
free of insects, pest damage and blemishes. Perfection for cut-roses 
requires the buds to have the same size, shape, and degree of maturity.
    To meet the market's standards, cut-rose growers stated they need 
to control pests and diseases as a vital element in providing a 
consistent quality product to their customers. According to survey data 
collected by Roses Inc., growers treat roses with pesticides an average 
of 6.4 times per month. Comments from growers on the frequency of 
pesticide applications supports Roses Inc.'s estimate.
    Growers and Roses Inc. also commented that the timing of harvest is 
also critical in providing the market with roses at the same degree of 
maturity. According to growers and Roses Inc., there is a short window 
of opportunity to harvest the flower once it reaches this peak stage. 
The rose industry also asserts the need to harvest frequently is due to 
the physiology of the rose flower. Roses cut too soon do not open or 
fully blossom whereas roses cut late are too full and have a shorter 
shelf-life. Depending on the season and variety, the window for 
harvesting a high quality rose once it reaches its peak is about 2 to 6 
hours, according to public comments from Roses Inc. and cut-rose 
growers.
    The essential constraint imposed by the WPS on cut-rose production 
is the REI. This is due to the need to harvest roses at least twice per 
day under current practice to achieve maximum yield, quality and price. 
REI's for most of the available pesticides range from 12 to 48 hours. 
Therefore, the REI may interfere with the ability to harvest when 
pesticide treatment is also needed, resulting in a negative impact on 
the industry.
    The methods available to cut-rose growers for producing roses and 
controlling pests are essentially the same as when the original 
exception was granted. Currently, spraying is performed in the late 
morning when several pests are most active and when moisture produced 
by spray equipment will dry rapidly. Late morning spraying would 
usually prevent afternoon harvest(s) due to the length of most REIs. 
Hypothetically, spraying could be performed after the last harvest of 
the day, with reentry into the greenhouse after the 12-hour REI of most 
pesticides expired the following morning. However, growers and 
scientists do not agree on this issue. Most of the growers and several 
scientists expressed concern that late day spraying would prolong leaf 
wetness due to slower drying late in the day. Higher levels of moisture 
are believed to increase disease and phytotoxicity. Several growers 
said that the prevalence of diseases increased when late day spraying 
was performed. Other growers and scientists believed that late day 
spraying could be acceptable. Late day spraying would not eliminate the 
need for an exception covering 24- and 48-hour REI pesticides.
    Many growers noted that they are presently using integrated pest 
management (IPM). Growers mentioned using heating, cooling, 
ventilating, lighting, nutrition, greenhouse structures alteration and 
methods of pruning, cutting, and handling of their crops. Even with 
their screened greenhouses and computer environmental controls, growers 
contend that they still need pesticides. Growers also stated that 
chemical rotation is used to control pests and reduce the rate of pest 
and disease resistance to chemicals. When pest and disease resistance 
to chemicals increases, the need to treat also increases.

[[Page 51996]]

    The original WPS exception (59 FR 30265) notes that ``EPA is 
granting a two-year exception to provide rose growers time to adjust 
pesticide spray schedules, find early-entry alternatives, and develop 
technology.'' A condition of approval of the original exception to the 
cut-rose industry was the expectation that progress would be made 
toward obviating the need for another exception. Several organizations 
representing farm workers commented that the lack of adequate effort 
toward eliminating the need for the exception argues against renewing 
the exception. Some individual growers have commented that they have 
attempted to reduce the need for the exception by testing biological 
controls, such as predatory mites, and changing cultural methods. 
Several growers and Roses Inc. commented that newer, shorter REI 
pesticides are not sufficiently effective. Farm worker advocacy 
organizations wrote that the cut-rose industry did not use the 2 years 
of the 1992 WPS cut-rose exception to develop safer practices.
    Growers commented that they use heating and venting or horizontal 
air flow or, less commonly, high-intensity lighting, to reduce humidity 
and free moisture to control disease. Some growers have installed 
screens over vents to reduce infestation from insects such as thrips 
and aphids. Roses Inc., asserted that as a small industry under severe 
foreign competition, it has not had the resources to pursue 
alternatives to the exception as aggressively as desired. Roses Inc. 
expressed disappointment that few newer and safer chemicals with short 
REIs and more biological control methods have not been developed as 
rapidly as hoped.
    According to Roses Inc., the cut-rose industry uses approximately 
28 essential chemicals to control many pests. Powdery mildew, botrytis, 
and downy mildew are the three most significant diseases. Thrips, 
aphids, white flies, and two-spotted spider mites are the most 
important insect and mite pests. Roses Inc. and growers commented 
numerous times that all currently available pesticides are essential to 
produce domestically-grown cut-roses. Annual spray schedules were 
supplied by several growers and these document the use of a variety of 
pesticides.
    In many cases several different chemicals, often with different 
REIs, are available to control each pest. Growers and a consultant for 
Roses Inc. argued that this variety of pesticides is necessary for 
several reasons, especially for pest resistance management. These 
commenters noted that pest resistance has already become a problem with 
several pesticides now available, including pyrethroids, abamectin and 
iprodione. Additional reasons given for requiring different chemicals 
were: price, relative efficacy, low phytotoxicity, efficacy against 
multiple pests, mode of application, and speed of achieving control.
    While several reasons were provided regarding chemical usefulness, 
insufficient information comparing the merits of chemicals used to 
control the same pests was presented, especially when the chemicals had 
differing REIs. This deficiency should be remedied if another renewal 
is requested. However, despite presenting less than the desired amount 
of comparative information regarding pesticides, the Agency believes 
that there is still a need for the exception no matter which individual 
pesticides may be used. Regardless of the justification of the 
necessity of any particular pesticide, clearly the cut-rose industry 
cannot currently rely only on 4-hour REI pesticides, changes in 
cultural practices or drastic reductions of the number of pesticide 
applications. Therefore, even if several individual pesticides were 
determined unessential, growers would still be faced with applying 
mostly longer REI pesticides at frequencies similar to the present.
    Roses Inc. and several growers raised concerns about the impact of 
foreign imports on the U.S. cut-rose market and industry. Imported cut-
roses reached 66% of the U.S. market, with the largest percent being 
shipped from Columbia and Ecuador. U.S. growers are concerned about the 
regulatory limitations they operate under relative to their foreign 
competitors. Foreign producers have access to stronger and more 
effective pesticides that are no longer registered in the United 
States. Imported roses enter the United States free of pesticide-
related restrictions. U.S. growers indicated that these factors give 
foreign producers a comparative advantage over them.
    U.S. rose growers stated that they must achieve high quality 
standards for lower prices to compete with foreign imports in the U.S. 
rose market. Prices for cut roses have decreased by 3% to 6% between 
1992 and 1995. The average annual wholesale prices for hybrid-tea roses 
in different geographic regions range between 17 and 68 cents per stem, 
with the U.S. average at 33 cents per stem. Prices peak 1 to 2 weeks 
prior to major floral holidays, like Valentines Day, and may reach over 
$1.00 per stem.
    Growers stated that to survive economically, they need to harvest 
two and sometimes three times a day. A few growers noted occasional 
exceptions only harvesting once on Sundays or holidays, like Christmas 
and New Years. According to rose growers who cut twice a day, the first 
cut yields 40% to 70% of the daily harvest, with the second cut 
yielding the remaining 30% to 60%. For those cutting three times a day, 
the first cut yields 40 to 70%, the second cut 10 to 30%, and the last 
cut up to 45% of the daily harvest. These percentages seem to vary 
considerably by geographic region and season. The amount of flowers 
that mature in the afternoon increases as temperatures and light 
intensity increases.
    Growers indicated without an exception that they lose a minimum of 
the afternoon harvest(s) when they need to treat with a pesticide(s). 
If a grower applies a pesticide that has a 12-hour REI after the 
morning harvest, they will miss a minimum of the afternoon harvest(s). 
Growers would lose 1 to 2 full days of harvest with an application of a 
pesticide that has a 24- or 48-hour REI, respectively.
    Based on the information collected and provided by growers, losses 
of 7% to 14% may occur if EPA did not grant the exception. Roses Inc. 
and many growers estimated losses between 7% to 14% of the annual 
harvest. Others estimated losses to be 10% to 30% a year. Losses in 
revenue could range between $8 and $16 million annually, assuming 
losses of 7% to 14%. Growers with a higher frequency of pesticide 
applications and/or applications of pesticides with 24- or 48-hour REIs 
will have greater loss estimates.
    Secondary markets for roses do exist; however, the prices are 
significantly lower than those for prime roses. Street vendors selling 
cut-roses may be considered the secondary market. According to growers, 
prices for the secondary market range between 8 and 14 cents per stem 
and up to 30 cents in one area. These prices are 50% to 75% lower than 
the prime market price and lower than some growers production costs per 
stem.
    A grower's decision to sell roses to the secondary market will 
depend on their variable production costs. If the unit price is lower 
than the costs to produce the cut rose, it is not economical for the 
grower to sell to the secondary markets. This may vary by grower 
depending on the time of year. For example, a grower may sell flowers 
to the secondary markets during the summer because their fuel 
expenditures may be low thus reducing their overall production costs.
    Based on the production costs and budget data available, some rose 
growers will not be able to sustain additional losses even with the 
exception to the WPS REI requirements.

[[Page 51997]]

Budget information was obtained from a few growers and a March 1995 
report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Report. The ITC 
collected detailed budget data for 1991 through 1993 and part of 1994. 
According to the ITC data, almost half of the growers incurred net 
losses in 1991 and 1992 and two-thirds of the growers incurred net 
losses in 1993. It is difficult to determine from this data if the same 
growers incurred losses year after year.
    The cost and budget data received from growers showed similar 
results. Some growers showed profits and others showed net losses. 
Growers with net losses explained that, over the last year or two, they 
had implemented changes in cultural practices or made significant 
capital expenditures, like screens for vents and light systems for the 
greenhouses. It is difficult to fully interpret the budget data without 
a broader sample and access to more details.
    A large number of rose growers could potentially be effected 
without the exception to the WPS. The U.S. cut-rose industry is 
comprised of 175 growers and up to 200 growers when all small growers 
are included. California growers constitute about 46% of the number of 
growers and produce at least 65% of the U.S. total production. About 
two-thirds of all U.S. growers would be considered small. The impact of 
losses incurred will depend on the efficiency within a greenhouse 
operation, the pest pressure in each greenhouse, and the ability to 
adjust spray schedules and the timing of harvest. Growers with few 
resources, including small growers are likely to be effected the most. 
Smaller growers may have more limited resources for capital 
improvements to help reduce pest pressure or install lights as quickly 
as larger operations. Most likely, larger operations have invested in 
upgrading their greenhouses with more efficient equipment and 
facilities. On the other hand, small growers may have more flexibility 
than really large operations to adjust harvest and spray schedules.

 B. Risk To Workers

    Commenters noted that the large number and high volume of chemicals 
used, as well as the high frequency of applications that is typical in 
rose production indicate potential for high worker exposure and high 
worker risk. These comments stated that many of the chemicals listed in 
the Roses Inc., exception request are acutely toxic, or have been shown 
to cause a variety of delayed effects in laboratory animals, including 
cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, neurotoxicity, and 
endocrine disruption.
    Commenters also expressed a belief that rose harvesters are better 
protected than other agricultural workers. They cited several 
characteristics of the rose greenhouse to indicate a relative degree of 
safety. Such characteristics include a stable, skilled work force that 
tends to be well-trained and receptive to safety training. Also cited 
is the tendency for rose harvesters to be paid either on an hourly or 
salary basis rather than a piece rate. This, it is argued, indicates a 
probability that workers will adhere to safe work practices making use 
of protective equipment and other safety measures which might be 
foregone if such measures could slow their work, thus reducing their 
pay. Some comments also noted that in the greenhouse environment, 
workers generally have easy access to water for drinking and 
decontamination, and that in the relatively confined space of a 
greenhouse, workers are easier to monitor for compliance with safety 
rules.
    Others observed that certain characteristics of the greenhouse 
environment suggests an increased level of worker risk. Both growers 
and worker advocates cite the problem of heat and humidity in 
greenhouses which increases risk of heat-related illness and 
discourages workers from wearing protective clothing and equipment 
because it may be uncomfortable. EPA shares the concerns about the risk 
of heat stress in greenhouses. EPA also notes that, while greenhouse 
environments tend to be warm and humid, the environment is 
controllable.
    Numerous comments from rose growers indicated excellent safety 
records for their employees, and many said neither they nor their 
employees had ever experienced pesticide related injuries or illnesses. 
Comments from a county agricultural commissioner in California cited a 
draft report by the Worker Health and Safety Branch of the California 
Department of Pesticide Regulation. The draft report summarizes cases 
reported to the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program, and 
covers poisoning incident data for greenhouses and outdoor nursery 
operations for the years 1990 through 1994. According to this draft 
report, only three cases of pesticide-related illness, rated as 
possibly or probably related to pesticide exposure, were indicated as 
specific to rose growing operations; none of these incidents involved 
hospitalization, and one involved the worker missing 5 days of work. 
(EPA notes that some incidents appearing on the draft report cite only 
``ornamentals'' or do not indicate the crop involved.) These commenters 
further state that while in other parts of the country many pesticide 
incidents go unreported, in California, for several reasons, it is rare 
for incidents to go unreported. The reasons given include California's 
extensive regulatory program, the general level of public awareness 
about pesticide use, and requirements placed on the medical care 
industry to report all suspected pesticide-related cases. This 
commenter asserts that acute pesticide poisonings, at least in 
California, are less likely to be overlooked than in the past. EPA 
believes that incident reporting is higher in California that in other 
parts of the country, but does not believe that it is rare for cases to 
go unreported.
    Worker advocates argued that, while the reported number of 
pesticide-related incidents may be small, many incidents still go 
unreported. Even the California Incident Reporting System, these 
commenters argue, documents only a small fraction of the actual 
incidents that occur because: (1) Many farmworkers cannot afford to 
take a day off work to seek medical treatment, so they continue working 
despite symptoms of acute poisoning; (2) many farmworkers lack the 
financial means to secure medical care, or lack transportation to get 
to a medical provider; and (3) often farmworkers and medical providers 
do not recognize or report symptoms of pesticide exposure. Several 
commenters also expressed concern over delayed effects that are 
difficult to link to pesticides because the exposure does not result in 
immediate symptoms, and therefore does not get reported. Such effects 
may include cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, 
neurotoxicity, and endocrine system disruption. The Association of 
Farmworker Opportunity Programs states that incidents are under 
reported since the symptoms of pesticide poisoning often mimic the 
symptoms of colds and flu.
    Commenters expressed disbelief that repeated or prolonged pesticide 
exposures could lead to such delayed effects. Some noted that family 
members and friends who have worked in the rose industry for a number 
of years continue to enjoy good health. Others criticized the Agency's 
concern for effects resulting from repeated low-dose exposures as 
``conjectural and speculative theorizing,'' and suggested that the 
Agency should assume the burden of proof that such effects are real 
before placing entry restrictions on the industry.
    One grower mentioned that none of his retirees filed claims for 
effects

[[Page 51998]]

suffered from long-term use. Another grower wrote that in 50 years of 
operation they have never had a case of poisoning or a case of someone 
getting sick from applying pesticides. One grower mentioned that his 
employees were more likely to have an increased exposure to toxic 
chemicals while they were pursuing their hobbies than while harvesting 
roses.
    EPA agrees that the likelihood of pesticide-related incidents going 
unreported in California is much lower than in other states where 
systems for reporting incidents are not in place, and where the 
regulatory framework providing for workers' health and safety may not 
be as developed. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is difficult to 
conclude, based on incident data, that reentry protections such as REIs 
are less important to the health and safety of rose harvesters than to 
other farmworkers. While the number of rose workers reported to have 
experienced pesticide-related illness or injury in California appears 
to be small, it may not be an accurate gauge for rose workers 
nationally, and does not account for size of the rose work force 
relative to the size of the general agricultural work force. Employers' 
Reports of Occupational Injuries, compiled by the California Department 
of Industrial Relations (1981 - 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 all agricultural workers (0.46 poisonings per 
1,000 workers per year).
    Regarding delayed effects, EPA acknowledges that several rose 
production chemicals identified by Roses Inc., have been shown in 
laboratory animals to cause the variety of effects cited by worker 
advocates in their comments. However, EPA does not have sufficient data 
to determine whether the potential level of exposure to rose harvesters 
corresponds to levels of concern identified in the toxicological 
studies that demonstrated these effects. More importantly, EPA has 
generic concern for workers working in areas shortly after pesticide 
applications have been completed when pesticide residue levels are at 
their highest and the potential for worker exposure is greatest. Such 
concern is heightened when many different chemicals are used and 
cultural practices dictate frequent or prolonged reentry, as is the 
case with rose harvesting. Finally, EPA agrees that such delayed 
effects would rarely, if ever, be captured in pesticide incident 
reports.
    Worker risk can be decreased by reducing exposure during periods 
when pesticide residues are at the highest levels, by limiting the time 
workers are exposed, and by limiting the workers' direct contact with 
treated surfaces. EPA believes that the early-entry requirements set 
out in this exception acceptably reduces worker contact with pesticide-
treated surfaces. Worker contact will be limited by not allowing entry 
for the first 4 hours following application and until inhalation and 
ventilation criteria on the label has been met; by limiting the 
duration of the contact to 3 hours and by requiring PPE to protect 
workers from treated surfaces.

C. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

    Some growers wrote that safety has always been important to them. 
One cut-rose grower wrote that they have not had serious problems with 
pesticide exposure in the history of their organization because of 
their stringent training program and serious attitude toward worker 
protection. An employee wrote that each worker has and uses their own 
safety equipment including full protective gear. One harvester stated 
that the PPE used during the REI was both comfortable and protective.
    One grower mentioned that, except for the respirators, the PPE 
equipment does not appear to unduly stress the staff. Another grower 
explained that his employees were agreeable to the use of special 
gloves, sleeves and aprons; however, they were opposed to the use of 
full protective suits, respirators, boots, gloves and face shields. One 
cut-rose grower wrote that he tried to have workers use coveralls, but 
everyone complained about the heat. Another grower mentioned that the 
employees complain about the PPE being uncomfortable in the heat of the 
summer; however, he writes that he allows plenty of water breaks.
    A grower mentioned that his employees preferred leather gloves 
rather than rubber gloves because of comfort and perspiration in 
chemical resistant gloves. In a public dialogue with rose harvesters, 
one harvester mentioned that his hands were raw after using chemical 
resistant gloves.
    Several growers and harvesters mentioned that they had complete 
laundry and shower facilities. One grower with laundry and shower 
facilities stated he assigns an individual to launder the PPE.
    EPA believes that PPE, along with other provisions of this 
exception, will reduce worker exposure to pesticide residues and thus 
will reduce the risk.

D. Time Allowed in the Treated Area

    Several growers' comments supported the Roses Inc. request that the 
time allowed in treated areas be expanded from 3 hours per worker per 
day to 4 or 8 hours per worker per day. Other growers commented that by 
rotating staff and using pesticides with 12-hour REIs or less, less 
than 3 hours per worker per day was sufficient to maintain normal 
harvest levels.
    EPA notes that the shorter the workers' time in the treated area, 
the less potential exposure the worker will experience. By limiting 
early-entry rose harvesters to 3 hours per worker per day, EPA believes 
potential harvester exposure and resulting potential risk will be 
considerably less than would be expected if workers' time in treated 
areas is expanded to 4 or 8 hours.

E. Expiration Date

    Roses Inc. requested the Agency to grant an exception for 5 years 
or indefinitely. Some commenters stated that the exception should be 
longer than 2 years because it would not be enough time to establish 
new methods that could be successfully implemented. One grower stated 
that the exception should be granted for 5 years.
    Several growers suggested granting the exception permanently until 
compelling data shows that the issue needs to be revisited. One grower 
mentioned the exception should be granted for an unlimited amount of 
time and remove the use of the exception from any grower that has a 
series of problems or multiple violations.
    EPA expects the cut-rose industry to work towards eliminating the 
need for this exception. Therefore, this exception will expire on 
October 4, 1999. Although the technology may not exist in 2 years to 
completely eliminate the need for a cut-rose exception, the Agency will 
want to review the advances made in greenhouse technology and cultural 
cut-rose practices. In addition, EPA will take into account the 
conclusions from the NIOSH's study on PPE effectiveness and any 
relevant toxicological data that may be available at that time. If 
another exception request is received, EPA will need to make 
considerations based on all additional information that may be 
available at that time.

III. EPA's Exception Decision

    In the WPS, EPA prohibited, in general, early entry for hand labor, 
such as harvesting because EPA concluded that entry during a 
restricted-entry interval to perform routine hand-labor tasks is rarely 
necessary, that PPE for

[[Page 51999]]

workers is not always practical because workers may remove it or use it 
incorrectly, and that the PPE itself may generate heat stress. In this 
case, EPA believes that the risks for rose harvesters will be mitigated 
by the limited time harvesters are allowed in the treated area, the use 
of PPE and the short period of time that it will be worn, accessible 
decontamination facilities, and provision of label-specific information 
to harvesters and basic pesticide safety information.
    However, to provide greater certainty about the potential risk to 
early-entry rose harvesters, EPA has provided funding to the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct and 
evaluate the effectiveness of PPE at mitigating residue exposure. EPA 
believes it is essential to examine the effectiveness of PPE to 
mitigate worker exposure and intends to consider the results of NIOSH 
research, as well as any additional data generated in responding to 
future exception requests. Therefore, if the rose industry believes 
that there may be a continuing need for an exception for rose 
harvesting, EPA strongly encourages that they pursue data demonstrating 
the effectiveness of risk reduction measures, such as PPE, in addition 
to the EPA-funded NIOSH research.
    While the rose industry has begun to explore alternatives to early 
entry, such as adjusting spray schedules, trying engineering controls, 
and other safe alternatives, EPA believes a more systematic approach is 
necessary to progress toward eliminating the need for an exception. EPA 
also believes that certain alternate practices have promise for 
eventually reducing or eliminating the need for early entry for rose 
harvesting in greenhouses. Therefore, EPA strongly recommends that the 
cut-rose industry pursue data development and research on such 
alternatives, and pilot test those alternatives which appear to be most 
promising.

A. EPA's Risk Assessment

    Post-application worker exposure is a function of time, activity, 
and pesticide residue levels. Risk increases with longer periods of 
exposure, high levels of contact with treated surfaces and when contact 
occurs while pesticide residue levels are at their highest. Worker risk 
can be reduced by limiting exposure during periods when pesticide 
residues are at the highest levels, by limiting the time workers are 
exposed, and by limiting the workers' direct contact with treated 
surfaces.
    During peak production periods when rose bushes have been 
cultivated for maximum production, rose harvesters can have 
considerable contact with foliage during harvesting activities. Since 
cut-rose harvesting typically occurs twice per day, 6 or 7 days per 
week, rose harvesters are likely to have repeated exposure to the 
pesticide residues present in greenhouses. The high frequency of 
pesticide applications to roses, combined with the relatively slow 
expected breakdown of pesticides applied in greenhouses, indicate that 
pesticide residues will be present during rose harvesting activities. 
If harvesting takes place while foliage is still wet, or when residues 
have not dried due to irrigation, dew, high humidity or condensation, 
transfer of pesticide residues from foliage to the rose harvesters will 
be higher, resulting in an increase in risk. This exception requires 
that harvesting not take place until 4 hours after application and 
after all inhalation and ventilation criteria on the label has been 
met. This combined with the cut-rose growers need to reduce dew, high 
humidity, and condensation in the greenhouses for optimum roses should 
decrease harvesting taking place while foliage is wet.
    Toxicological endpoints for repeated pesticide exposures tend to be 
lower than for single and short-term exposures. Several chemicals used 
on roses have been shown to produce adverse effects in laboratory 
animals. EPA does not have sufficient data to determine whether the 
potential level of exposure to rose harvesters corresponds to the 
levels of concern identified in the toxicological studies that 
demonstrated these effects. Given that exposure to pesticides used in 
cut-rose cultivation has the potential to cause adverse effects, a way 
to reduce that risk is to reduce the exposure. A worker's exposure can 
be decreased with shorter periods of exposure, less contact with 
treated surfaces and with reduced pesticide residue levels.
    EPA has designed this exception to reduce the risk associated with 
increased exposure during early entry while balancing the benefits of 
giving cut-rose growers flexibility to perform necessary harvesting 
tasks. EPA is maintaining the 3-hour maximum time allowed in the 
treated area within a 24-hour period rather than allow unlimited entry 
during the period prior to major floral holidays as Roses, Inc. 
requested. The Agency concludes that this is sufficient time to harvest 
and combined with the other protections required under this exception, 
EPA believes the benefits of a limited 3-hour entry period outweigh the 
risks of exposure in that period.
    EPA believes that risk for rose harvesters will be mitigated by 
limiting time harvesters are allowed in the treated area, the use of 
PPE, the availability of decontamination supplies, and the provision of 
label-specific information to harvesters and basic pesticide safety 
information.
    EPA believes that the early-entry requirements set out in this 
exception acceptably reduces worker contact with pesticide-treated 
surfaces. Worker contact will be limited by not allowing entry for the 
first 4 hours following application and until inhalation and 
ventilation criteria on the label has been met; by limiting the 
duration of the contact to 3 hours and by requiring PPE to protect 
workers from treated surfaces.
    The following additional factors or terms contributed to EPA's 
decision: (1) Early entry PPE could be comfortably worn for 3 hours; 
(2) use of unattached absorbent glove liners make it much more likely 
that harvesters will wear the required chemical resistant gloves or 
liners underneath the optional leather gloves; (3) there is 
approximately only 200 greenhouse cut-rose growers, facilitating 
communication and compliance monitoring activity between the rose 
industry and EPA; (4) the scale of greenhouse operations and limited 
number of harvesters per greenhouse should allow employers to more 
easily ensure that workers wear the PPE; (5) cut-rose growers using 
this exception will be required to report any incidents which 
harvesters believe are the result of pesticide exposure occurring 
during early-entry harvesting under the conditions of this exception; 
(6) running water, and in some cases showers, for decontamination and 
heat-stress alleviation are more accessible in greenhouse operations 
than in field settings; and (7) the exception will be in effect for 
less than 3 years before reevaluation. EPA therefore believes that 
early entry with PPE is feasible and provides adequate reduction of 
risks to rose harvesters.

B. Economic Analysis

    Through written comments and public dialogue, the cut-rose industry 
has made a case that entry during the REI to harvest cut roses is 
necessary, and that prohibiting such entry could have a substantial 
adverse economic impact on growers of these commodities. Based on 
written statements received from the rose industry, on information 
gained during public meetings and greenhouse tours, as well as on EPA's 
knowledge of rose production, EPA finds that the benefits of early 
entry are substantial. The rose industry has provided sufficient

[[Page 52000]]

information demonstrating that routine entry during an REI to harvest 
roses twice daily is still necessary and that prohibiting such entry 
could have a substantial economic impact on cut-rose growers.
    Depending on the product applied, the associated REI, and the time 
of year, growers could lose 25-50% of their daily revenues on the days 
pesticides are applied. EPA believes that the cut-rose industry cannot 
absorb this loss without significant repercussions. Additionally, since 
the exception is subject to conditions designed to mitigate risk to 
early-entry workers, EPA believes that early entry under the terms of 
this exception will not pose unreasonable risks to rose harvesters.

IV. Terms of the Exception

    Use of this exception is conditioned on the following requirements:

A. Completed Conditions and Certification Statement

    Agricultural employers must read and send a completed Conditions 
and Certification Statement to the EPA before using this exception 
(Forms may be obtained by writing, calling, faxing or e-mailing Sara 
Ager at the address and telephone number listed in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.).

B. Compliance with Requirements

    Agricultural employers must fully comply with the early-entry 
requirements of this exception:
    1. No entry for first 4 hours after application and until after any 
inhalation and ventilation criteria specified on the label has been 
reached (Sec. 170.112(c)(3)).
    2. Workers may enter a treated area during an REI to perform only 
hand harvesting of greenhouse grown roses (exception to 
Sec. 170.112(c)(1)).
    3. A worker's time in the treated area during an REI for hand 
harvesting shall not exceed 3 hours within any 24-hour period 
(exception to Sec. 170.112(c)(2)).
    4. Workers must read the label or be informed in a language the 
worker understands of labeling requirements related to safe use.
    5. The agricultural employer shall notify workers before entering a 
treated area, either orally or in writing, in a language the workers 
understand, that the establishment is using this exception to allow 
workers to enter treated areas before the REI expires, to hand harvest 
roses.
    6. Agricultural employers must provide, properly maintain, and 
ensure workers wear the early entry PPE listed on the label in 
accordance with Sec. 170.112(c)(4)-(c)(9). When chemical resistant 
gloves are required on the label, workers have the option of wearing 
the leather gloves over the required chemical resistant gloves. In 
accordance with Sec. 170.112(c)(4)(vii), once leather gloves have been 
worn for early-entry use, thereafter they shall be worn only with 
chemical-resistant liners and they shall not be worn for any other use.
    In addition, unattached, absorbent glove liners may be worn 
underneath the chemical resistant gloves or liners, provided the 
unattached, absorbent liners are completely covered by the chemical 
resistant liner or glove (exception to Sec. 170.112(c)(4)(vii)). 
Absorbent liners must be disposed of after each day of use in early-
entry harvesting.
    7. All other applicable provisions of the Worker Protection 
Standard (40 CFR part 170) also remain in effect.

C. Reporting Incidents

    Agricultural employers using this exception are required to report 
any incidents that harvesters believe are the result of pesticide 
exposure occurring during early entry harvesting under this exception. 
The agricultural employer shall notify EPA (address provided under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 5 consecutive days of any incident 
believed to be the result of exposure to pesticides or pesticide 
residues that occurred during early-entry harvesting performed under 
the conditions of this exception.
    In addition, there may be no findings of unacceptable levels of 
risk by EPA, resulting from NIOSH's investigations, from other risk 
studies, or from incident reporting and investigation. If the Agency 
receives information that shows the health risks posed by early entry 
to areas treated with pesticides registered for use on cut-roses are 
unacceptable, it reserves the right to not allow specific chemicals to 
be used in conjunction with this exception. EPA reserves the right to 
withdraw or revise the scope and conditions of this exception at any 
time, in accordance with Sec. 170.112(e)(6).

V. Reevaluation of the Cut-rose Exception

    This exception will expire on October 4, 1999. In the interim, EPA 
is expecting the cut-rose industry to actively pursue alternate 
cultural methods that will eliminate the need for this exception. EPA 
also expects that with the research, Roses Inc. and other industry 
trade groups will sponsor outreach education with cut-rose producers 
explaining the exception, the need for strict compliance with its terms 
and explain the risk concerns presented by pesticide use and worker 
entry during REIs.
    The cut-rose industry was not able to make adequate progress over 
the 2 years that the original exception was in place to eliminate the 
need for renewal. The effort of individual growers to attempt to use 
alternatives to long REI chemicals has not been sufficient to obviate 
the need for a new exception. Some alternative measures that appear 
promising initially may have serious shortcomings when examined more 
closely. For example, spraying after the last harvest was generally 
claimed to be unacceptable for a number of reasons, including several 
given above. However, little documentation was presented concerning 
these shortcomings, and there was no evidence given regarding their 
impact. Some of these shortcomings, while generally accepted, remain 
hypothetical or anecdotal.
    In addition, not all growers had the same experience when using 
alternatives. Several growers commented that they used late day 
spraying successfully, at least since the original exception expired in 
June 1996. It is also possible that hypothetical expectations of 
failure may not be borne out by experience or experiment. For example, 
while several scientists and growers were concerned that insects that 
are more active early in the day would not be effectively controlled by 
late spraying, two growers commented that they sprayed late for thrips.
    It is important to demonstrate not only the existence of some noted 
shortcomings, but also to measure their impact. It is possible that 
where these problems exist, their magnitude and/or frequency of 
occurrence is sufficiently small to be acceptable to growers. Perhaps 
more importantly, where real and significant problems are found, it may 
be possible to ameliorate their effects. The specific conditions in 
which problems of applying alternatives arise may be identified, giving 
growers more confidence in using them at other times.
    On several issues regarding alternate practices and the need for 
all currently available chemicals, many growers and the consultant for 
Roses Inc., commented that due to variations in growing conditions and 
pests among different growers, even in the same region, generalizations 
could not be made about the adequacy of alternate practices. By 
extension, attempts to implement these alternate practices in the 
entire industry would seriously harm some growers. While there is 
undoubtedly some validity in arguments about variability, such general 
arguments are, by nature, practically unverifiable. Therefore, better

[[Page 52001]]

documentation of the impacts of using alternate practices will be 
necessary in the future.
    In light of the cut-rose industry's claimed lack of adequate 
resources to conduct necessary studies of alternatives and because of 
the inability to answer some basic background questions necessary for 
the thorough evaluation of the need for an exception, the Agency will 
work with the cut-rose industry and scientists knowledgeable about cut-
rose production over the next 2 years to gather necessary information 
and perform research in areas that may move the industry from the need 
for further exceptions. Therefore, in the next 2 years, the industry, 
should show continuing progress in documenting and demonstrating, but 
not limited to, the following:
    1. Adequate justification for including all current pesticides, in 
the exception especially 24- and 48-hour REI pesticides.
    a. There is more than one chemical of a given class or mode of 
action, that controls the same pest or spectrum of pests, the industry 
should justify the need for maintaining all such chemicals in the 
exception, i.e. describe the advantages and disadvantages of each 
chemical.
    b. Advantages of specific chemicals, such as price or efficacy 
differences, should be quantified. Part A should be completed within 
the first year of the exception so that part B may be presented to the 
Agency by August 1998.
    2. Due to the large number of pests and chemicals required by the 
industry, the Agency does not believe that registration of new, safer 
chemicals or biological control agents in the next 2 years will be 
sufficient to replace many of the longer REI chemicals currently used. 
Therefore, efforts to eliminate the need for another exception should 
focus on practices that allow avoidance of the REI of existing 
chemicals, including:
    a. Systematic research of spraying at times that minimize the need 
for an exception, in particular spraying after the last daily harvest. 
Such research should include measurement of the impact of late day 
spraying on pest damage and phytotoxicity. Attempts should be made to 
ameliorate problems encountered with implementation of altered spray 
schedules.
    b. Exploration of techniques that allow early harvesting of roses, 
which may eliminate or reduce the need for harvesting several times per 
day.
    Roses Inc. and several growers requested a longer term for the 
current exception. Several growers also commented that 2 years is an 
unrealistically short time period to research and implement new methods 
of pest control or production. It is therefore critical that clear and 
measurable objectives and goals are established early and that these 
goals and objectives, and progress in meeting them, are regularly 
reported to the Agency. The cut-rose industry should work closely with 
the Agency and researchers to accomplish these goals. Success or 
difficulty in accomplishing such benchmarks may then be used should 
another exception be desired.
    EPA is interested in working with the rose industry to identify 
specific research efforts, identify competitive grant funds that may be 
available to support such research, discuss protocols and time frames 
for initiating and completing studies, and incorporating practices at 
the individual grower establishment. However, establishing research 
goals, objectives, time lines, and measurements is fundamentally the 
responsibility of the cut-rose industry. Sara Ager in the Certification 
and Occupational Safety Branch will continue to be the lead Agency 
contact for the rose industry. The Agency is willing to meet with the 
rose industry to discuss implementation of the exception, review any 
findings from the NIOSH risk investigations, and review the industry's 
progress in reducing the need for early entry and this exception.

VI. Public Docket

    A record has been established for this administrative decision 
under docket number ``OPP-250121.'' A public version of this record, 
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, that does not 
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The public record is located in Crystal Mall #2, Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Electronic comments can be sent directly 
to EPA at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214e51510c454e424a4455614451404c40484d0f4451400f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b8a7a7fab3b8b4bcb2a397b2a7b6bab6bebbf9b2a7b6f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    This document is an adjudication of eligibility for an exception to 
certain requirements of the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 
170. As such it is not a regulation or rule and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
Executive Order 12866 entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
section 601, et seq., or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997). It does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any 
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). It also does not require any prior 
consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing 
the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993) or 
special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled 
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The information collection requirements associated with this 
exception have been approved by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. under OMB control number 2070-00148 
(EPA ICR No. 1759). An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to a collection of information subject to 
OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the 
final action or rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and appear on any 
related collection instrument.
    The total public burden related to the information collection 
activities in this exception are estimated to be 600 burden hours, with 
the average burden for each cut rose grower estimated to be 3 burden 
hours. For analysis purposes, ``burden'' includes the total time, 
effort, or financial resource expended by persons to generate, 
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for the 
Agency. As defined by the PRA, ``burden'' means the total time, effort, 
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, 
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    Send comments on the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any 
suggested

[[Page 52002]]

methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 
2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Please remember to include the OMB control number in 
any correspondence.

List of Subjects in Part 170

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 29, 1997.
Susan H. Wayland,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.

[FR Doc. 97-26321 Filed 10-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>