Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Requirements
[Federal Register: September 9, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 174)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47543-47550]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09se97-26]
[[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: 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 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:
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:
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
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}