47544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 chemicalresistant 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:

first.joshua@epamail.epa.gov.

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 chemicalresistant 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 occupationallyrelated 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 chemicalresistant gloves, are specific to the

particular pesticide label. Pesticide

labels may require that chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 earlyentry 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 multipleuse 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 cottonlined (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 chemicalresistant 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
47546 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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’ chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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
47548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 chemicalresistant 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. Chemicalresistant 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. 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:

§ 170.112 Entry restrictions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(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 chemicalresistant 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 chemicalresistant 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 polytype material are considered to be a

glove liner if worn beneath a chemicalresistant 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
47550 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 170.240 Personal protective equipment.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(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 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 polytype material are considered to be a

glove liner if worn beneath a chemicalresistant 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.

(ii) 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

replaced immediately if directly

contacted by pesticide solution. Used

glove liners may not be cleaned and reused.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–23833 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F