[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53341-53346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-19923]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-2003-0169; FRL-7352-3]
RIN 2070-AC93


Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Liners, and Chemical-
Resistant Glove Requirements for Agricultural Pilots

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992 Pesticide Worker Protection Standard 
to permit optional use of separable glove liners beneath chemical-
resistant gloves. This amendment also makes optional the provision that 
agricultural pilots

[[Page 53342]]

wear gloves when entering or leaving aircraft. All other provisions of 
the Worker Protection Standard are unaffected by this rule. EPA 
believes that these changes will reduce the cost of compliance and will 
increase regulatory flexibility without increasing potential risks.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
number OPP-2003-0169. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the 
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, 
Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number 
is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Eckerman, Field and External 
Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: 703-305-5062; fax number: 703-305-2962; e-mail 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural employer, including an employer in a farm as well as a 
nursery, forestry, or greenhouse establishment, who is subject to the 
Worker Protection Standards. Potentially affected entities may include, 
but are not limited to:
     Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production, NAICS 
111, i.e., industries growing crops mainly for food and fiber (farms, 
orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in 
growing crops, plants, vines, or trees and their seeds).
     Support activities for agriculture and forestry, NAICS 
115, i.e., agricultural employers (farms).
     Timber tract operations, NAICS 1131, i.e., establishments 
primarily engaged in the operation of timber tracts for the purpose of 
selling standing timber.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine 
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should 
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 170. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA 
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 170 
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This action amends the pesticide Worker Protection Standard at 40 
CFR 170.112 and 170.240 to permit optional use of separable glove 
liners beneath chemical-resistant gloves and to make optional the 
wearing of gloves by agricultural pilots when entering or leaving 
aircraft. In both cases, the pesticide product labeling may specify 
otherwise. All other provisions of the Worker Protection Standard are 
unaffected by this rule.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    This final rule 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, in order to carry out the provisions of FIFRA, 
including FIFRA section 3, 7 U.S.C. 136a.

C. What did the Agency Propose?

    In the Federal Register of September 9, 1997 (62 FR 47543) (FRL-
5598-9), EPA proposed two changes to the Worker Protection Standard 
(WPS) for agricultural pesticides. The first proposed change would 
allow separable glove liners to be worn beneath chemical-resistant 
gloves. The second change EPA proposed was to delete the requirement 
(40 CFR 170.240(d)(6)(i)) that pilots must wear chemical-resistant 
gloves when entering and leaving aircraft used to apply pesticides. All 
other Worker Protection Standard provisions concerning glove liners and 
chemical-resistant gloves were unaffected by this proposal. The Agency 
believed that these proposed changes would reduce the costs of 
compliance and increase regulatory flexibility without increasing 
potential risks.

III. Comments

    Comments on the two major provisions of the proposed amendment, the 
use of separable glove liners and the wearing of gloves when entering 
or exiting aircraft, are discussed below.

A. Separable Glove Liners

    EPA proposed to allow agricultural workers to wear separable glove 
liners beneath their chemical-resistant gloves. The decision to use 
separable glove liners was to be at the discretion of the pesticide 
user and chemical-resistant gloves could continue to be used without 
liners. EPA's proposal contained restrictions to assure that 
contaminated liners would not remain in use. To assure that 
contaminated liners were not reused, all liners would have to be 
discarded immediately after 8 hours of use within any 24-hour period 
and liners could not be laundered and reused. The glove liners could 
not be any longer than the chemical-resistant gloves under which they 
are worn to prevent absorption of pesticides. The glove liners that 
came into contact with pesticides would have to be discarded 
immediately and replaced with new liners. Discarding glove liners 
immediately is necessary to ensure that contaminated gloves are not 
reused, accidentally or otherwise.
    Of the 12 individuals and organizations who commented specifically 
on this particular proposal, 10 strongly supported the change. These 
supporters included agricultural employers and their representative 
organizations, members of the lawn care industry, State departments of 
agriculture, academic researchers, and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    In its comments, NIOSH agreed with EPA that permitting workers to 
wear glove liners under their chemical-resistant gloves should result 
in increased compliance with the standards and decreased exposure to 
pesticides. NIOSH commented further that permitting workers to wear 
glove liners might also reduce the risk of

[[Page 53343]]

allergic reactions to certain glove materials.
    In general, the supporters of the Agency's proposal said that 
workers often do not wear chemical-resistant gloves because of the 
discomfort they experience. Several testified to witnessing the 
discomfort that can result from the wearing of unlined chemical-
resistant gloves. The major discomfort is profuse sweating in the 
summer and extreme cold during cooler months. One commenter cited his 
experiences with workers who had developed severe hand dermatitis as a 
result of wearing chemical-resistant gloves without liners. This 
commenter also stated that he believed that EPA's prohibition against 
the use of separable glove liners was increasing the incidence of 
dermatitis.
    Several of the commenters in support of glove liners requested the 
option of reusable liners that could be laundered. Other commenters 
stated their support for disposable liners as contained in the 
proposal. Two of the commenters requested that liner use be extended to 
10 hours from the proposed 8 hours, but with discarding still required 
at the end of a 24-hour period. These commenters were the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center, which represents farmers who grow and 
harvest sugar on about 70,000 acres in Hawaii, and the Hawaiian 
Commercial & Sugar Company, Hawaii's largest producer of raw sugar, 
accounting for more than 60% of all of the State's sugar and producing 
more than 200,000 tons of raw sugar annually. Both stated that their 
industry workers often have shifts up to 10 hours and believed no 
benefit was derived from requiring an extra set of liners for an extra 
2 hours of use.
    EPA believes that the request to extend glove use in a given 24-
hour period from 8 to 10 hours is reasonable. It was the intention of 
the proposed rule to permit the use of separable glove liners for the 
duration of the shift, but also to ensure that glove liners were 
discarded at the end of a shift or when contaminated. Comments were 
received indicating that shifts can be up to 10 hours long. In light of 
the proposed requirement that glove liners be replaced when 
contaminated, the fact that a shift may be 10 hours long rather than 8 
hours should not lead to the use of contaminated gloves in the period 
beyond 8 hours. Thus, to require employers utilizing shifts slightly in 
excess of 8 hours to replace gloves during that period, when no 
contamination has occurred, is an unnecessary burden with no 
significant increase in worker protection, and would respond to no 
added risk of concern.
    Two comments addressing the glove liner proposal were not in favor 
of permitting the use of liners. One comment, submitted jointly by the 
Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., the Farmworker Association of Florida, 
the Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the Teamsters Local 890, and 
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (the ``Farmworker 
Comment''), argued that the use of glove liners could negatively affect 
worker dexterity, that liners would not substantially increase worker 
comfort, and that the proposed limitations on use of gloves after 
contamination or a specified time period would be difficult for lay 
people to follow, difficult to enforce, and unlikely to be observed. 
This comment also took issue with the use of personal protective 
equipment (PPE) generally. The second comment, submitted by a private 
citizen, stated that the necessary research had not been done on this 
issue prior to publication of the proposed amendment. The commenter did 
not, however, identify what additional research would have been useful.
    EPA, however, agrees with commenters who supported the view that 
permitting use of comfortable glove liners will increase the overall 
use of chemical-resistant gloves. Several commenters pointed out that 
workers are more likely to comply with the requirement to wear 
chemical-resistant gloves if separable glove liners are included. Those 
finding that glove liners are not useful, are uncomfortable, limit 
dexterity, or have other non-risk related negative consequences may 
continue to use unlined chemical-resistant gloves. EPA believes that 
permitting reusable glove liners with a laundering requirement would be 
difficult to enforce and would not assure the desired degree of 
protection. Specifically, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
ascertain when gloves had been laundered. Further, permitting re-use of 
glove liners, even if laundered, would not ensure adequate protection. 
The Agency feels that re-laundered liners are not sufficiently 
protective, because there is no certainty that laundering a glove liner 
would remove all contaminants. Information reviewed by the Agency 
indicates that, although careful laundering has the potential to reduce 
pesticide residue levels on gloves, it can be difficult to eliminate 
pesticide residues from gloves, even after repeated washing. EPA 
believes that disposable glove liners assure that the worker has a non-
contaminated liner and does not place an undue financial burden on the 
employers. Disposable glove liners are inexpensive and readily 
available. In EPA's experience and based on its judgment, worker 
comfort and dexterity are improved and workers are more likely to 
comply with the requirement to wear chemical-resistant gloves if there 
is an option to wear comfortable separable glove liners with them.
    EPA does not believe that more research is necessary regarding this 
issue prior to the adoption of the modification. EPA also disagrees 
with the view that questions over the broader issue of whether to 
require PPE at all support denying the option to use disposable glove 
liners, which would facilitate the use of chemical-resistant gloves, a 
form of PPE that is in fact required by current regulations. Finally, 
EPA does not believe that the requirement to replace glove liners after 
contamination or a specified time of use would be difficult to enforce. 
On the contrary, enforcement could be readily effectuated through on-
site inspection. Moreover, those encountering difficulty with the 
timely replacement of glove liners could always choose the option of 
not using liners at all.
    After careful consideration of comments from the Hawaii Agriculture 
Research Center and the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company discussed 
above, EPA is adopting the original proposal with the modification that 
glove liners can be used for up to 10 hours in a 24-hour period. This 
revision is consistent with EPA's original intent to limit use of 
individual glove liners to a single shift. The provisions of the 
proposal requiring disposal of glove liners at the end of a 24-hour 
period and in the event of contamination are being retained in the 
final rule. Additionally, EPA has added language that contaminated 
glove liners must be disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, or 
local regulations.

B. Pilots Entering or Exiting Airplane

    EPA proposed to remove the requirement that pilots of aircraft 
applying pesticides wear gloves when entering or exiting the cockpit. 
Comments were received from the National Agricultural Aviation 
Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, aerial application 
firms, growers, and state officials in support of the proposal to 
permit agricultural aviators to enter or exit the cockpit of aircraft 
without chemical-resistant gloves. The major point made by the 
commenters in favor of the proposal was that the introduction of 
contaminated gloves into the confined area of the cockpit would create 
a hazard far in excess of any hazard caused by the

[[Page 53344]]

minimal hand contact with the aircraft occurring when entering or 
exiting the cockpit. Also mentioned by the National Agricultural 
Aviation Association and some individual agricultural aviators was the 
use of gloves by pilots when adjusting spray equipment. This 
appropriate use of gloves can result in significant pesticide residues 
on the gloves. Therefore, gloves used by pilots should not be assumed 
to be lightly used and thus free of significant pesticide residues. 
Ideally, gloves that have been worn to perform pesticide-related tasks 
outside the airplane should be discarded, but if they are brought into 
the cockpit, they must be stored in an enclosed container to prevent 
contamination of the inside of the cockpit, as stated in the current 
regulation. As long as gloves brought into the cockpit are stored 
properly, they should generally present no risk of concern.
    Two commenters did not support this proposal. The Farmworker 
Justice Fund, Inc. stated that the body of the aircraft becomes 
contaminated with pesticides and that the wearing of gloves when 
entering or exiting the aircraft was a minor burden. The second 
commenter, an individual, did not believe EPA had adequately 
established its case that the potential for contamination was minimal.
    EPA agrees with commenters that requiring pilots to wear gloves 
when entering and exiting the cockpit is unnecessary in typical 
situations. Our experience with chemical risk assessments and 
regulations since the implementation of the worker protection standard, 
e.g., in conjunction with the registration and reregistration programs, 
indicates that not wearing gloves when entering and exiting the cockpit 
does not present a risk of concern. Since before proposal of this rule 
in 1997, the Agency has been performing risk assessments assuming that 
no gloves were worn when entering the cockpit. These risk assessments 
were performed on chemicals with a wide variety of toxicological 
characteristics throughout both the registration process and under the 
Agency's pesticide reregistration program and have not identified 
concern for exposure at the levels evaluated without gloves. 
Consequently, EPA has concluded that there is not a routine need for 
pilots to wear gloves when entering and exiting the cockpit. The Agency 
may, however, determine on a case-by-case basis that some pesticide/use 
combinations could trigger the need for gloves or the need to prohibit 
the use of gloves when entering or exiting the cockpit. The Agency 
expects that such determinations would be followed by requirements to 
revise product labeling.
    The amended regulation does not require agriculture aviators to 
wear gloves when entering or exiting an aircraft. The option of whether 
to wear gloves is at the discretion of the pilot, subject to the 
Agency's authority, as stated above, to determine on a case-by-case 
basis when the use of gloves should be required or prohibited on the 
pesticide product labeling. The Agency emphasizes that today's action 
is not intended to alter the requirement of 40 CFR 170.240 for wearing 
gloves during loading, mixing, and other pesticide-handling operations 
associated with aircraft used to apply pesticides.

IV. Final Rule

    After considering the comments received in response to the proposed 
rule, the Agency is issuing this final rule because EPA believes that 
these changes will reduce the costs of compliance and will increase 
regulatory flexibility without increasing potential risks. Only two 
modifications to the original proposal have been made: (1) To allow 
glove liners to be used for up to 10 hours in a 24-hour period, rather 
than the 8 hours in the proposed rule; and (2) to add language that 
contaminated gloves must be disposed of in accordance with Federal, 
State, or local requirements.

V. FIFRA Review Requirements

    In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a), this final rule was 
submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), the Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and appropriate 
Congressional Committees. The SAP has waived its review of this final 
rule, and no comments were received from USDA or any of the 
Congressional Committees.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) because it does not meet any of the 
criteria in section 3(f) of the Executive Order. The option provided 
under this rule is intended to provide a reduced burden alternative to 
the existing requirement. As such, if utilized it is not expected to 
increase requirements which would increase costs to any person.
    An economic analysis was not performed for this rule because the 
Agency determined that because the rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' performing an economic analysis would involve 
considerable time and resources and would not add measurable value to 
the decisionmaking process involved in this rulemaking.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection 
requirements which require approval by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. EPA has determined 
that this regulatory action

[[Page 53345]]

does not impose any adverse economic impacts on any small entities 
because this rule provides regulatory relief and regulatory 
flexibility. In addition, if utilized by a business, the implementation 
of the one option for glove liners would not constitute a significant 
cost to anyone, small or large.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
(Public Law 104-4), this action does not contain a Federal mandate that 
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 
1 year. The costs associated with this action are described in the 
Executive Order 12866 section, above. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final 
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of governments specified 
in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175

    As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 
2000), EPA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as 
specified by Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13211

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
designated as an ``economically significant'' regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866, nor is it likely to have any 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) does not apply to this final rule because this action is not 
designated as an ``economically significant'' regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866 (see Unit XI.A.), nor does it 
establish an environmental standard, or otherwise have a 
disproportionate effect on children.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 
methods, and sampling procedures) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does not impose 
any technical standards that would require EPA to consider any 
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This rule does not have an adverse impact on the environmental and 
health conditions in low-income and minority communities. Therefore, 
under 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 not 
considered environmental justice-related issues.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United 
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VIII. References

    1. Memorandum dated January 26, 2004 from Jeffrey L. Dawson, 
Chemist/Risk Assessor, and Jeff Evans, Biologist, Health Effects 
Division, EPA to Nancy Vogel, Field and External Affairs Division, EPA.
    2. Stone, Janis F. and Wendy Wintersteen, ``Learn About Pesticides 
and Clothes,'' Fact Sheet Pm-1265f, 1992, p. 1 (Iowa State University 
Extension, Ames, IA). Available electronically at http//: 
www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1265f.pdf.
    3. Stone, Janis F., ``Understand Label Precautions,'' Fact Sheet 
Pm-1663a, 2000, p. 2 (Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA). 
Available electronically athttp://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1663A.pdf.
    4. Stone, Janis F., ``Wear the Right Gloves,'' Fact Sheet Pm-1663c, 
2000, p. 1 (Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA). Available 
electronically at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1663C.pdf.
    5. Stone, Janis F., ``Keep Gloves Handy for Pesticide Work,'' Fact 
Sheet Pm-1518e, 2002, p. 2 (Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA). 
Available electronically athttp://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1518e.pdf.
    6. Gianato, Susan, ``Laundering Pesticide-Contaminated Clothing,'' 
publication WL-315, 1996, (West Virginia University, Extension Service, 
Morgantown, WV). Available electronically at http://www.wvu.edu/exten/infores/pubs/fypubs/WL315.pdf.
    7. Handle Pesticide-Stained Clothes with Care, 2001, (University of 
Illinois Extension, Urbana- Champaign). Available electronically 
athttp://www.extension.uiuc.edu/cfe/.
    8. Montana State University, Bozeman, ``Laundering Pesticide 
Contaminated Clothing,'' p. 1. Available electronically at http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/extension/MT_laundering.htm.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Labeling, Occupational safety and

[[Page 53346]]

health, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


    Dated: August 25, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.


0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 170--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 170.112 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(vii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  170.112  Entry restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vii)(A) 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 gloves 
made of these materials are listed as acceptable for such use on the 
product labeling. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient 
durability and suppleness are not obtainable, leather gloves may be 
worn on top of chemical-resistant gloves. However, once leather gloves 
have been worn for this use, they shall not be worn thereafter for any 
other purpose, and they shall only be worn over chemical-resistant 
gloves.
    (B) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant 
gloves, unless the pesticide product labeling specifically prohibits 
their use. Separable glove liners are defined as separate glove-like 
hand coverings made of lightweight material, with or without fingers. 
Work gloves made from lightweight cotton or poly-type material are 
considered to be glove liners if worn beneath chemical-resistant 
gloves. Separable glove liners may not extend outside the chemical-
resistant gloves under which they are worn. Chemical-resistant gloves 
with non-separable absorbent lining materials are prohibited.
    (C) If used, separable glove liners must be discarded immediately 
after a total of no more than 10 hours of use or within 24 hours of 
when first put on, whichever comes first. The liners must be replaced 
immediately if directly contacted by pesticide. Used glove liners shall 
not be reused. Contaminated liners must be disposed of in accordance 
with any Federal, State, or local regulations.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 170.240 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5) and 
(d)(6)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  170.240  Personal protective equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5)(i) 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 gloves made of these materials are listed 
as acceptable for such use on the product labeling.
    (ii) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant 
gloves, unless the pesticide product labeling specifically prohibits 
their use. Separable glove liners are defined as separate glove-like 
hand coverings, made of lightweight material, with or without fingers. 
Work gloves made from lightweight cotton or poly-type material are 
considered to be glove liners if worn beneath chemical-resistant 
gloves. Separable glove liners may not extend outside the chemical-
resistant gloves under which they are worn. Chemical-resistant gloves 
with non-separable absorbent lining materials are prohibited.
    (iii) If used, separable glove liners must be discarded immediately 
after a total of no more than 10 hours of use or within 24 hours of 
when first put on, whichever comes first. The liners must be replaced 
immediately if directly contacted by pesticide. Used glove liners shall 
not be reused. Contaminated liners must be disposed of in accordance 
with any Federal, State, or local regulations.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Aerial application--(i) Use of gloves. The wearing of chemical-
resistant gloves when entering or leaving an aircraft used to apply 
pesticides is optional, unless such gloves are required on the 
pesticide product labeling. If gloves are brought into the cockpit of 
an aircraft that has been used to apply pesticides, the gloves shall be 
kept in an enclosed container to prevent contamination of the inside of 
the cockpit.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-19923 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S