Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Requirements

Federal RegisterSep 9, 1997

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250120; FRL-5598-9]

RIN 2070-AC93]

Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two changes to the Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) for agricultural pesticides. First, EPA proposes to allow

separable glove liners to be worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves.

Second, EPA proposes to delete the requirement that pilots must wear

chemical-resistant gloves when entering and exiting aircraft used to

apply pesticides. All other WPS provisions about glove liners and

chemical-resistant gloves are unaffected by this proposal. EPA believes

that these changes will reduce the costs of compliance and will

increase regulatory flexibility without increasing potential risks.

DATES: Written comments, identified by docket control number OPP-

250120, must be received on or before October 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticides Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments

to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following

the instructions under Unit VII. of this preamble. No confidential

business information should be submitted through e-mail.

Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as

``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information marked as CBI

will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All

written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at

the address given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua First, Certification and

Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: 703/305-7437, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities potentially regulated by this

action are agricultural employers who use pesticides that are regulated

by the Worker Protection Standard.

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

Category Regulated Entities

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

Industry Agricultural employers

(farms, greenhouses,

nurseries, forestry)

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

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to be a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. To determine whether or not you are subject to regulation by

this action, you should carefully examine 40 CFR part 170.

I. Statutory Authority

This proposal is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.

section 136-136y. Under FIFRA, EPA must regulate pesticides so that

they do not cause unreasonable adverse effects to man or the

environment, taking into account the economic, social, and

environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide. In

deciding how to regulate pesticides, FIFRA requires EPA to balance the

risks to human health and the environment associated with pesticide

exposure and the benefits of pesticide use to society and the economy.

II. Background of the Worker Protection Standard

On August 21, 1992, EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) (40 CFR part 170) which is intended to protect agricultural

workers from risks associated with agricultural pesticides. The 1992

WPS expanded the scope of the original WPS to include not only workers

performing hand labor activities in fields treated with pesticides, but

also workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. It

included pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle

pesticides for use at these locations in the production of agricultural

commodities. The WPS requires that workers receive training, be

notified of pesticide applications, and be instructed in the use of

personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes chemical-resistant

gloves. The WPS also established restricted entry intervals (REIs)

after pesticides are applied, and required employers to provide

decontamination supplies for workers to clean pesticide residues from

themselves, and emergency medical assistance.

This proposed WPS amendment is one of a series of Agency actions in

response to concerns raised by persons affected by the WPS since its

promulgation in 1992. This proposal addresses the prohibition on the

use of absorbent glove liners and the requirement that aerial pesticide

application pilots wear chemical-resistant gloves when entering or

exiting aircraft contaminated by pesticides. The changes in this

proposal would increase the flexibility of the WPS without increasing

potential risks, and would reduce the costs of compliance.

III. Current Glove Requirements

Exposure of hands and forearms to pesticide residues and mixes is

an important route of occupationally-related exposure to pesticides.

Studies have demonstrated that the appropriate use of chemical-

resistant gloves can greatly reduce the potential exposure of workers'

hands to pesticides.

PPE requirements, such as chemical-resistant gloves, are specific

to the particular pesticide label. Pesticide labels may require that

chemical-resistant gloves be worn in situations when there is a risk of

dermal exposure to pesticide mixes or residues that pose a hazard.

The WPS defines and sets minimal standards for the types of PPE

that are required on pesticide labels. For example, the WPS generally

prohibits glove liners made of absorbent material from being used under

chemical-resistant gloves, unless a pesticide label specifically

permits them. While this prohibition is intended to stop the use of

flocked gloves (where the liner material is an integral part of the

glove), it technically includes separable liners as well. For field

workers, PPE is only required during early entry into an area under an

REI; workers may choose to wear PPE after the REI has expired, if they

wish.

The parts of the WPS that affect the types of gloves and glove

liners that agricultural workers must wear, which the Agency is

proposing to change, are described below.

[[Page 47545]]

1. Agricultural workers. Section 170.112(c)(4)(vii), contains

provisions governing the use of gloves by agricultural workers entering

any pesticide treated area during an REI, generally referred to as

early entry. This provision states: ``Gloves shall be of the type

specified on the [pesticide] product labeling. Gloves or glove linings

made of leather, cotton or other absorbent materials must not be worn

for early-entry activities unless these materials are listed on the

product labeling as acceptable. . . .''

2. Pesticide handlers. Section 170.240(c)(5)(i) contains similar

provisions for pesticide handlers; it states: ``Gloves shall be of the

type specified by the [pesticide] product labeling. Gloves or glove

linings made of leather, cotton or other absorbent material shall not

be worn for handling activities unless such materials are listed on the

product labeling as acceptable. . . .''

3. Aerial applicators. Section 170.240(d)(6), applies to people who

apply pesticides by air, and specifies: ``Chemical-resistant gloves

shall be worn when entering or leaving an aircraft contaminated by

pesticide residues.''

For the purposes of this proposal, a glove liner is defined as a

separate glove-like hand covering made from a light weight material,

with or without fingers. Flocking, which consists of closely placed

small tufts of soft material glued or bonded onto the inside of gloves,

is not defined as a glove liner. Flocked gloves are prohibited by the

WPS because they are nearly impossible to adequately decontaminate, and

EPA believes that they are unlikely to be disposed of after they are

used.

IV. Glove Liners

A. Reasons for This Proposal

EPA has received written comments and held discussions on this

subject with Congressional staff, grower groups, forestry groups, a

group representing farmworkers, and sugar and pineapple growers from

Hawaii. These groups maintain that the general WPS prohibition against

separable, absorbent glove liners is problematic for both field workers

and pesticide handlers.

Commenters reported that workers who wear chemical-resistant gloves

without absorbent liners frequently develop irritated skin from

continuous contact with the non-breathable inside of the gloves. They

said that this occurs primarily during hot weather. Commenters also

stated that, rather than warming hands during cold weather, unlined

rubber and vinyl gloves quickly chill workers' hands and can exacerbate

skin conditions or dermatitis. Apparently, health and comfort problems

limit workers' efficiency and ability to complete their tasks. As a

result, workers often avoid properly wearing the unlined chemical-

resistant gloves, thus increasing their chances of exposure to

pesticide residues. These problems have been documented in the past,

and even though hygiene may play a role in some of the discomfort

workers experience, the gloves are fundamentally the cause of the

problems.

EPA believes these reports are true. At the very least, compliance

with glove requirements may not be good under extreme weather

conditions. Allowing workers to wear separable liners underneath their

chemical-resistant gloves would most likely improve compliance

significantly and therefore result in decreased exposure to pesticides.

EPA believes the costs are low enough and the potential risks from

exposure are high enough to provide strong support for proposing this

refinement of the existing rule.

EPA is concerned about reports from growers that support earlier

documentation of the same problems by academia (like R. A. Fenske,

1988, whose work was based on clinical study and field observations and

was used in understanding the problem of heat stress in the 1992 WPS)

and government researchers like Schneider, F.A., et.al., California

Department of Food and Agriculture Report HS-1462, 1988. In that study

the workers objected to wearing chemical-resistant gloves because of

extreme heat-based discomfort, and the researchers had to modify their

study because the workers would not wear the gloves for more than 2

hours at a time. The problem being documented is that many workers

experience severe discomfort and dermal health problems from wearing

unlined chemical-resistant gloves and that they will not wear the

gloves properly as a result of their discomfort. Based on their

experience and field observations, growers have stated to EPA that

workers should be allowed to wear cotton liners or liners with

properties similar to cotton, underneath their chemical-resistant

gloves, and thereby reduce or eliminate their discomfort and promote

the use of the protective equipment.

These concerns about heat stress and PPE are not new; the Agency

raised these same concerns in its 1992 official Response to Comments

(which documents EPA's approach to developing the 1992 WPS) after the

WPS was published in 1992:

The Agency has studied the issue of PPE for agricultural field

workers who are performing routine hand labor tasks and has

concluded that routine use of PPE, such as chemical-resistant

gloves...for such field workers is, in general, not only

impractical, but also may be risk-inducing due to heat stress

concerns. The Agency has determined that hired agricultural workers,

especially harvesters, have a disincentive to wear PPE.

The Response to Comments also states ``the Agency recognizes that

the use of personal protective equipment in hot, humid, working

conditions may lead to heat stress and discomfort, '' and the ``Agency

has determined that multiple-use cotton gloves and cotton-lined gloves

are not acceptable for use in pesticide handling or early entry because

they are difficult to decontaminate after use and are too expensive to

be disposable.''

But in 1992, EPA's concern about ``glove liners'' was only about

cotton-lined (flocked) chemical-resistant gloves, where the soft lining

is permanently attached to the inside of the glove. The Agency was not

concerned about separable liners, which were not widely available at

the time. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 170.112 and 170.240 clearly

reflects this intention because it refers to glove ``linings'', which

are permanently attached, as opposed to ``liners'' which are removable

from the chemical-resistant glove. In sum, EPA did not originally

intend to eliminate separable glove liners from use and EPA believes

that the WPS is written too broadly in this respect.

EPA's concerns about flocked liners are still justified, as flocked

gloves are quite difficult if not impossible to decontaminate; they are

also expensive enough that their relative high cost (from $2.00 to

$10.00 per pair, and more for specialized materials) and long

durability (several weeks to several months) is a considerable

disincentive for their disposal after one or two uses.

EPA is not proposing to change the prohibition against flocked

gloves, because its concerns about them have not changed. In this

proposal EPA is distinguishing removable (separable) glove liners from

flocked gloves. Unlike in 1992, separable glove liners made from cotton

or similar material are now quite inexpensive (39 cents per pair and

less) and widely available. EPA believes that their low cost is a

strong incentive to comply with WPS and dispose of the liners after

they are used. Although separable glove liners stand a far better

chance of being decontaminated than non-removable flocking, EPA

believes

[[Page 47546]]

that most attempts to decontaminate separable liners will not be

adequate. It is for this reason that EPA is proposing that the liners

be thrown away after a single use.

EPA believes that by not wearing gloves, workers are at greater

risk of pesticide exposure than if they temporarily wear absorbent

liners with some pesticide residues on them.

B. Options Considered

In considering the requests to change the prohibition on glove

liners, EPA in part reassessed the initial analysis used to establish

the restriction. This reassessment is based on discussions with

stakeholders, internal exposure assessments by EPA, and weighing the

risks and benefits of possible measures. After considering this

information, the Agency has decided to propose changes to the WPS

limitations on absorbent glove liners. EPA considers the proposed

change to be a refinement of the current rule and not a substantive

risk-based decision.

As previously stated, although the Agency remains concerned about

workers' possible exposure to potential pesticide residues retained in

absorbent separable glove liners, it is willing to propose changes to

the current limitations and requirements listed above. EPA's initial

and primary concern about glove liners stemmed from the inability to

decontaminate flocked gloves and the unlikelihood that flocked

chemical-resistant gloves would be thrown away after only one or two

uses. The prohibition, as worded, is too broad for the narrow class of

glove liner EPA meant to prohibit. By proposing the change, EPA is

seeking to clarify its position. Given that separable glove liners are

inexpensive (39 cents per pair or less), EPA believes that it is likely

that the used liners will be properly thrown away after use.

EPA believes that, under certain conditions, the benefits of

allowing the use of separable absorbent glove liners under chemical-

resistant gloves outweigh the risk of potential pesticide exposure

associated with the use of the liners. EPA believes that the potential

but unquantified exposure scenarios associated with contaminated glove

liners are lower than the known exposure and risks associated with not

wearing the gloves. Certain measures can reduce the potential exposure

associated with wearing liners contaminated with pesticide residues;

these measures are discussed below.

1. EPA considered the option of allowing absorbent liners to be

worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves only during certain weather

conditions. For example, absorbent glove liners could be used when the

weather is too hot or too cold to comfortably use chemical-resistant

gloves without the liners. The determination of when to wear the liners

would be made by the workers themselves and would not involve

monitoring for specific temperatures or humidity levels.

The Agency believes that this option could promote the use of

chemical-resistant gloves among those workers who need to wear them the

most. In hot and cold weather, workers wearing chemical-resistant

gloves often experience discomfort and skin irritation, due to the skin

of their hands continuously contacting the surface of the glove, which

traps moisture against the skin. In hot weather, hands sweat but the

sweat cannot evaporate and is trapped against the skin. In cold

weather, the unlined chemical-resistant gloves immediately transfer the

cold to the workers' hands. The effects of unlined gloves from heat and

cold results in workers rarely wearing chemical-resistant gloves or not

wearing them at all. But if workers are allowed to wear absorbent

liners, both problems can be alleviated.

2. EPA considered the option of allowing absorbent liners when the

weather reaches specific temperatures (or humidity levels). EPA

considered the low temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and the high of

78 degrees Fahrenheit to be the two thresholds beyond which workers

could wear absorbent liners beneath their chemical-resistant gloves.

Specifying temperatures could provide a concrete way to monitor

compliance. However, EPA is unsure of the potential for enforcement of

temperature-based limits, and actual temperature readings would not

take into account the relative humidity in a given area, which could

dramatically augment the discomfort posed by extreme temperatures at

either end of the thermometer. Moreover, temperatures may differ

significantly within small areas, such that workers at one end of a

field could wear the liners and workers at the other end could not. For

these reasons, EPA believes that this option is not practical.

3. EPA considered the option to allow the use of absorbent liners

but require those workers using the liners to frequently wash their

hands. This could alleviate concerns about exposure to residues in the

liners. However, EPA believes that requiring this measure would run

counter to the goal of regulatory flexibility and simplicity. Moreover,

both WPS and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration already

require that workers be trained about the need for washing because of

hygiene and pesticide residue risk concerns. This training also

includes cautions for washing before eating, smoking, and using

toilets.

4. EPA considered allowing workers unlimited reuse of liners, or to

reuse absorbent liners several times before disposing of them, so long

as the liners were thoroughly laundered daily or after each use.

Laundering would have to be done with appropriate amounts of clean tap

water and detergent. EPA is not proposing this option because of

concerns (raised in previous Federal Register Notices, including the

WPS itself), based on studies, that laundering will not adequately

remove residues from liners. More important, it is likely that this

measure cannot be monitored, and its potential for being enforced is

unknown.

Along with allowing the re-use of liners, EPA considered requiring

that chemical-resistant gloves be taped down when separable liners are

worn beneath them. This measure was rejected because, although it may

be suitable in some climates, in many climates it will trap moisture

inside the glove and create discomfort. It would thereby defeat the

very purpose of allowing glove liners in the first place. For this

reason it was rejected for all scenarios where liners would be used.

C. Proposal

EPA is proposing to allow all agricultural workers, including

pesticide handlers, to wear separable glove liners made from absorbent

materials beneath the chemical-resistant gloves whenever chemical-

resistant gloves are required, unless the label specifically states

that such liners are not allowed.

Under this proposal, used liners must be discarded after a total of

8 hours of use or at the end of every 24-hour period during which they

were used, whichever comes first. Each 8-hour and 24-hour period would

begin when the liners were first donned by the worker. The liners could

be worn several times during the 24-hour period to a total of 8 hours,

but they would have to be disposed of immediately at the end of the 24-

hour period or replaced immediately if directly contacted by pesticides

(in keeping with 40 CFR 170.240(f)).

EPA also proposes that the liners must be no longer than the

chemical-resistant glove under which they are worn, and that they may

not protrude beyond the edge of the glove. The Agency is proposing this

length restriction because, when exposed to

[[Page 47547]]

quantities of pesticides, absorbent glove liners can act as a ``wick''

and conduct pesticide residues inside the glove, where they may contact

the worker's hands.

Although EPA is proposing to allow employers more flexibility by

letting them choose when to allow workers to use absorbent glove

liners, employers must be aware that Sec. 170.240(f) would still apply.

Section 170.240(f) requires that all PPE be used, cleaned, maintained

and stored properly. This would apply to any glove liners that are worn

by employees. For example, a glove liner upon which a pesticide is

directly splashed or poured would have to be immediately removed,

disposed of, and replaced by a new one.

EPA has proposed the 8/24-hour period for wearing the liners

because the Agency believes that any potential pesticide residues that

contact the liners will be mitigated by having the liners disposed of

at the end of the 24-hour period. Moreover, EPA believes that an early-

entry worker wearing the liners will work only one or two shifts during

the entire 24-hour period. By current law, a worker's early-entry time

cannot exceed more than 8 hours total in a 24-hour period. During

early-entry work, the chances for serious contamination of the liner

during this period is low. A direct spill or splash is more likely to

pose significant risks, but only some mixers and loaders might be at

risk from a direct splash or spill. The WPS requires that all PPE thus

exposed to pesticides be removed, replaced immediately with clean PPE,

and be decontaminated or disposed of.

For pesticide handlers, a 1995 National Institute of Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH) study (``Dirty Bird,'' HETA 95-0248-2562)

demonstrated that pesticide exposure to and contamination of mixer/

loaders' removable glove liners over 8 to 9-hour work days can run from

non-detectable to substantial. In that study, NIOSH concluded that the

insides of mixer/loaders' protective (chemical-resistant) gloves

generally become contaminated over time, especially when the liners are

reused. NIOSH concluded that reusing the liners in mixer/loaders'

chemical-resistant gloves ``increases skin exposure [to pesticide

residues].'' EPA believes that these data support the proposed

prohibition against reusing glove liners, especially those used by

pesticide handlers. Two other NIOSH studies on chemical-resistant

gloves and pesticide residues (HETA 92-0022-2327 and HETA 94-0096-2433)

demonstrate that disposing of either the chemical-resistant liners or

the gloves themselves will significantly reduce potential exposure to

pesticide residues. The studies also provide strong support for the 8-

hour limit.

In sum, EPA is proposing this measure because the Agency believes

that it will reduce workers' exposure to pesticides. EPA wants to

reduce exposure that results from workers not wearing chemical-

resistant gloves they are required to wear because of the discomfort

they experience while wearing the gloves in both hot and cold weather.

The Agency believes that the separable liners will alleviate that

discomfort and will lead more workers to wear chemical-resistant

gloves. EPA believes that the potential, but low and unquantified,

exposures posed by pesticide residues penetrating the liners is far

less than the very real risk of exposure from workers not wearing the

protective gloves at all.

EPA has changed its previous determination that no glove liners

whatsoever should be allowed because flocked gloves alone posed

insurmountable problems. EPA now recognizes that its previous

prohibition against any and all glove liners was too broad. EPA intends

to maintain the narrow prohibition against flocked gloves and the use

of cotton gloves alone.

D. Glove Liner Requirement: Comments Solicited

Public comments will assist EPA in determining whether the

conditions resulting from the proposed change to the WPS could pose

unreasonable risks to workers. EPA desires comments on the proposal,

the options it considered, and on any other appropriate considerations.

Specifically, EPA would like to receive comments on the following

issues:

1. The feasibility and value of requiring pesticide handlers and

workers engaged in re-entry work to frequently wash their hands when

using glove liners.

2. The need or value of further documentation of the extent and

severity of the reported problems with skin irritation resulting from

wearing unlined chemical-resistant gloves.

3. The feasibility of laundering the liners.

4. The feasibility of requiring liners to be changed during a work

day that is less than 24 hours, such as after every shift, including

ones less than 8 hours.

5. The extent to which workers need and wear chemical-resistant

gloves.

6. The feasibility of allowing glove liners only under certain

weather conditions (such as specified cold and hot temperatures).

7. The possible requirement that liners be changed every ``n''

days, where ``n'' = 1, 2, 3 ... ; or every ``n'' hours.

8. The feasibility of allowing glove liners only when workers could

potentially contact certain classes of pesticides, such as Toxicology

Category I or II, where the result of a worker not wearing chemical-

resistant gloves at all may be much more severe.

9. The cost of liners, if disposal and regular replacement are

required.

10. The feasibility and value of specifying which types of

materials can be used to make glove liners.

11. Whether or not only workers engaged in early-entry should be

able to wear glove liners, or if pesticide handlers should be allowed

as well, as EPA is proposing.

V. Chemical-Resistant Gloves Requirement for Aerial Applicators

A. Reasons for This Proposal

In 1992, EPA believed that agricultural pilots were at substantial

risk from exposure to pesticide residues when entering and exiting

aircraft used to apply pesticides. EPA implemented the current

requirement of chemical-resistant gloves to counter potential risks of

exposure. After reviewing relevant studies and considering field

demonstrations, EPA no longer believes that the required chemical-

resistant gloves are necessary to protect agricultural pilots from

potential pesticide residues when entering and exiting their cockpits.

The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) represents

the interests of airplane and helicopter pilots who apply agricultural

pesticides. The NAAA opposed the glove requirement in 1992 before the

WPS was finalized; NAAA and EPA met again in 1995 and 1996 to further

discuss and evaluate the WPS requirement that chemical-resistant gloves

must be worn when people enter or exit aircraft contaminated by

pesticide residues.

The NAAA has stated that many of the PPE requirements for

agricultural aircraft pilots lack merit, and they believe that this is

especially true with the gloves requirement. NAAA objects to the

requirement not just because they believe it is superfluous, but

because it can itself represent an unnecessary burden on pilots. For

example, the chemical-resistant gloves may affect pilot dexterity, may

add a superfluous package to the cockpit, and they could possibly

contaminate items in the cockpit and the cockpit itself.

NAAA noted that studies done on the relative health of agricultural

pilots

[[Page 47548]]

indicate that pilots do not suffer from chronic or long-term risks

associated with the pesticides they apply any differently than the U.S.

population does. EPA was not sure that those studies were

comprehensive. But taking into consideration the results of

agricultural pilot health surveys and the required annual Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) medical examinations of pilots, EPA

believes that current pilot work practices certainly appeared to

satisfy the intent of the WPS gloves requirement, and may therefore

render the requirement unnecessary.

After meeting with NAAA, EPA sought answers to its remaining

concerns. EPA subsequently evaluated pilot incident data from

California and the FAA, pesticide exposure scenarios for pilots who do

not mix or load pesticides, pilot work practices, and spray drift

studies using colored dyes. EPA also considered technical developments

such as modern agricultural aircraft construction, satellite-based

aircraft guidance systems, and pesticide application methods and

equipment. A discussion of the most pertinent considerations follows.

First, data submitted and used (Deere Co.) for development of the

1992 WPS indicated that pesticide-contaminated clothing, such as

gloves, is the largest contributor of pesticides contamination into a

tractor cab. EPA acted on these data when forming the WPS requirements

for enclosed cabs, by requiring that the contaminated PPE be removed

before entry into the cab. EPA believes that the same principle holds

true for aircraft, that is, the presence of the chemical-resistant

gloves, if they were in fact contaminated by pesticide residues from

the outside of the aircraft, would most probably contaminate the

cockpit. Pilots' chemical-resistant gloves may not necessarily get

contaminated from the outside of the aircraft, but from the general

environment in which pilots work.

Additionally, the Agency reviewed FAA pilot and aircraft safety

records, FAA pilot medical records and crash data. As a result of the

data reviews, both EPA and FAA concluded that there was no evidence

supporting the general requirement that chemical-resistant gloves be

worn when people enter or exit aircraft. The very small number of

pesticide-related accidents were determined to be related to gross

exposure to large amounts of highly toxic pesticides, which were

unrelated to entering and exiting the cockpit. Both agencies determined

that the chemical-resistant gloves would not have mitigated any

accidents, nor would the gloves be at all likely to affect pilots'

health, which is closely monitored by FAA.

Finally, a 1995 NIOSH study (``Dirty Bird,'' HETA 95-0248-2562) of

an aerial applicator business in Arkansas included an assessment of the

pilots' potential exposure to pesticides and the value of some of the

WPS PPE requirements for pilots. The NIOSH study found that, unless

they also mix and load pesticides, agricultural pilots are exposed to

``low, or less than detectable, levels of surface [pesticide]

contamination'' and ``negligible airborne [pesticide] exposures''

inside their aircraft. This description includes surface wipe samples

of pesticide residues that were taken from around the cockpit entrance.

This NIOSH study, though not a large random sample of the aerial

applicator industry, provides strong support for the reassessment of

the chemical-resistant gloves requirement for pilots because it

reinforces what EPA has heard and observed. Potentially at greater risk

from exposure to incremental amounts of residues, those pilots who do

mix and load the pesticides they apply must still wear the PPE required

for mixing and loading; however, there is evidence that few aerial

applicators do mix and load the pesticides that they apply.

B. Options Considered

Because there is no WPS definition of a contaminated aircraft, and

based on the determination that not all aircraft used to apply

pesticides are contaminated, EPA considered the option to keep the

chemical-resistant glove requirement and define how contaminated

aircraft could be identified. Thus, chemical-resistant gloves would not

always have to be worn when entering and exiting aircraft that had

applied pesticides. Chemical-resistant gloves would be required only

when a clear determination had been made that the gloves would, in

fact, be protecting the wearer from exposure to pesticide residues.

EPA did not propose this option for two reasons. First, EPA

believes that there is substantial merit to the concerns about pilot

dexterity, complicated working environment, and possible contamination

of cockpits. Second and more important, the Agency rejected this option

due to a lack of objective criteria available which would enable both

pilots and EPA enforcement personnel to consistently identify

contaminated aircraft.

C. Proposal

EPA believes it is highly unlikely that, as a result of pesticide

application, significant pesticide residues will occur in areas

commonly touched by people accessing the cockpit. Those areas on an

aircraft which are usually exposed to pesticides, such as places

immediately behind and around the nozzles, must always be handled with

PPE, as they are part of the application equipment. EPA believes that

chemical-resistant gloves would not add any appreciable protection

against the minimal pesticide residues that might be encountered around

the cockpit of an aircraft. In sum, there is low risk of exposure from

entering and exiting the cockpit, and a low benefit from the chemical-

resistant gloves.

EPA also believes that, as much as possible, the WPS should

regulate similar situations consistently. The WPS requirements for

exiting an enclosed cab to contact treated surfaces state that PPE must

be removed before reentering the cab. The same approach should apply to

pilots, whose cockpits are much smaller than ground cabs and are more

susceptible to contamination.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to eliminate the current WPS

requirement that chemical-resistant gloves must be worn when pilots

enter and exit aircraft that have been used to apply pesticides.

D. Aerial Applicator Glove Requirement: Comments Solicited

The Agency seeks comments on this proposal and the considered

options. EPA wants comments on whether or not chemical-resistant gloves

could still provide a measurable, useful, amount of protection to

pilots. EPA is also especially interested in receiving comments and

suggestions on other ways to identify contaminated aircraft that will

meet the needs of pilots and of enforcement personnel.

VI. Statutory Requirements

As required by FIFRA section 25, this proposed rule was provided

for review to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to the Committee

on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate. No comments were

received from USDA or Congress. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

waived its review.

VII. Public Docket

The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established for this rulemaking under docket control

number ``OPP-250120'' (including comments and data submitted

[[Page 47549]]

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 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the address in

``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.

Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:

[email protected]

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comment 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 control number OPP-250120. Electronic comments

on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

VIII. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13045

It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a

``significant regulatory action'' that requires review under Executive

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997). This action proposes to amend existing regulations and

does not contain any new requirements that would increase the cost of

compliance to any person. Any changes implemented as a result of this

proposal would reduce the regulatory burden and lower costs.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875

This proposed action does not contain any new requirements or

impose any additional burden. In proposing to amend existing

requirements to provide flexibility or relief in the specific

situations involved, this action will result in savings and burden

relief for affected parties, including States, local or tribal

governments and the private sector, and will not result in any unfunded

federal mandates as defined by Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not contain any federal

mandates on States, localities or tribes, and is not subject to the

requirements of Executive Order l2875, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.), the Agency certifies that this regulatory action does not

have any significant adverse economic impacts on a substantial number

of small entities. This proposed action provides regulatory relief and

regulatory flexibility. In accordance with Small Business

Administration (SBA) policy, this determination will be provided to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA upon request. Any comments

regarding the economic impacts that this regulatory action may impose

on small entities should be submitted to the Agency at the address

listed in ADDRESSES.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed action does not contain any new information

collection requirements that would need approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection

requirements contained in the existing Worker Protection Standards were

approved by OMB under control number 2070-0148. An Agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are

listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Agency is interested in any comments on whether or not this

action will impact existing burden estimates, including the accuracy of

the estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent

burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques.

The final rule will respond to any comments received.

E. Executive Order 12898

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has considered

environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential

impacts of this action on the environmental and health conditions in

low-income and minority communities and has determined that this

proposed change will not adversely affect environmental justice.

List of Subjects in Part 170

Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational

safety and health, Pesticides and pests, and Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 170 be amended as

follows:

PART 170--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 170 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.

2. Section 170.112 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(vii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 170.112 Entry restrictions.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(vii) Gloves shall be of the type specified on the pesticide

product labeling. Gloves made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent

materials must not be worn for early-entry activities, unless those

materials are listed as acceptable on the product labeling. If

chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and suppleness are

not obtainable for tasks with roses or other plants with sharp thorns,

leather gloves may be worn over chemical-resistant gloves or chemical-

resistant glove liners (if available). Once leather gloves have been

used this way, they shall not be worn thereafter for any other purpose,

and they shall only be worn over chemical-resistant gloves or chemical-

resistant glove liners.

(A) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant

gloves, unless the pesticide product labeling specifically prohibits

their use. The liners may be made of cotton or other absorbent

materials. Glove liners are defined as a separate glove-like hand

covering made from a light weight material, with or without fingers.

Work gloves made from light cotton or poly-type material are considered

to be a glove liner if worn beneath a chemical-resistant glove. Liners

may not be longer than the glove under which they are worn. Chemical-

resistant gloves with flocking and other non-separable soft lining

materials are prohibited.

(B) Used glove liners must be discarded immediately after a total

of 8 hours of use or at the end of the 24-hour period during which they

were used, whichever comes first. The 8-hour and 24-hour periods begin

when the liners are first donned. The liners must be

[[Page 47550]]

replaced immediately if directly contacted by pesticide solution (in

keeping with 170.240(f)). Used glove liners may not be cleaned and re-

used.

* * * * *

3. Section 170.240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) and

removing (d)(6)(i) and redesignating (d)(ii) and (d)(iii) as (d)(i) and

(d)(ii), respectively to read as follows:

Sec. 170.240 Personal protective equipment.

* * * * *

(5) Gloves shall be of the type specified on the pesticide product

labeling. Gloves made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent materials

may not be worn while mixing, loading, applying, or otherwise handling

pesticides, unless those materials are listed as acceptable on the

product labeling.

(i) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant