[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47544-47550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23833]



[[Page 47543]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 170



Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Requirements; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 47544]]


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

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.

* * * * *
    (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 
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.

* * * * *
    (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 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.
    (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 re-used.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-23833 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F