Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Glove Liners, and Chemical-
Resistant Glove Requirements for Agricultural Pilots
[Federal Register: September 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 169)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53341-53346]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01se04-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.regulations.gov/. 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: eckerman.donald@epa.gov.
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.regulations.gov/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings a t http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 170 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://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 (59 FR 22951, 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 at http://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 at http://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
at http://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.
? Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 170--[AMENDED]
? 1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a, 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)(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.
* * * * *
? 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