On August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67830), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in part 2 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to revise the agency's rules of practice and procedure to improve access to documents and make e-filing rules technology neutral, to delete an obsolete regulation, to clarify the applicability of Subpart L and Subpart N procedures, to enhance internal consistency for page limit requirements, to enhance consistency with the Federal Rules of Evidence for “true copies,” and to better reflect current Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel practice regarding admission of evidence. In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on November 5, 2024. The NRC received one anonymous comment, which can be viewed at ADAMS Accession No. ML24256A206; the comment was not a significant adverse comment on the direct final rule. Therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.

The CFPB is issuing this advisory opinion through the procedures for its Advisory Opinions Policy. 1 Refer to those procedures for more information.

This advisory opinion explains that debt collectors are strictly liable under the FDCPA and Regulation F (12 CFR part 1006) for engaging in the following unlawful practices when collecting medical bills:

○ Collecting an amount not owed because it was already paid. This includes instances when a bill was already fully or partially paid by insurance or a Government payor.

○ Collecting amounts not owed due to Federal or State law. This includes where law prohibits obligating a person on certain debts. For example, a State workers' compensation scheme may make employers or insurers responsible for qualifying medical expenses, rather than the patients. In addition, the Nursing Home Reform Act prohibits nursing homes from requiring third parties to pay for a patient's expenses in certain circumstances.

○ Collecting amounts above what can be charged under Federal or State law. This includes, for example, collecting amounts that exceed limits in the No Surprises Act. It also includes collection of amounts that exceed a State's common law remedies for claims when there is no express contract.

○ Collecting amounts for services not received. This includes “upcoding” where a patient is charged for medical services that are more costly, more extensive, or more complex than those actually rendered.

○ Misrepresenting the nature of legal obligations. This includes collecting on uncertain payment obligations that are presented to consumers as amounts that are certain, fully settled, or determined.

○ Collecting unsubstantiated medical bills. Debt collectors must have a reasonable basis for asserting that the debts they collect are valid and the amounts correct. Debt collectors may be able to satisfy this requirement by obtaining appropriate information to substantiate those assertions, consistent with patients' privacy. This information could include payment records (including from insurance); records of a hospital's compliance with any applicable financial assistance policy; copies of executed contracts or, in the absence of express contracts, documentation that the creditor can make a prima facie claim for an alleged amount under State law ( e.g., “reasonable” or “market rates”).

This advisory opinion also interprets the meaning of “in default” for purposes of FDCPA section 803(6)(F)(iii) in the medical debt context to be determined by the terms of any agreement between the consumer and the medical provider under applicable law governing the agreement.

Medical debt is a major burden for many Americans. Recent estimates place total medical debt owed by people in the United States at $220 billion. 2 Medical debt is known to disproportionately impact young and low-income adults, Black and Hispanic people, veterans, older adults, and people in the Southern United States. 3

Medical debt is unique because consumers rarely plan to take on medical debt or choose among providers based on price. Most medical debt arises from acute or emergency care. 4 In many cases, patients lack the ability to substantively comparison-shop between medical service providers due to emergency need, restrictive insurance networks, price opacity, or limited provider availability. 5 This leaves many patients subject to the pricing and policies of the medical service providers available to them.

Healthcare providers send medical bills to consumers to obtain compensation for care rendered to patients. In some cases, providers and patients enter into express contractual relationships, which may define patients' payment obligations or providers' pricing for the care. Yet contracts between providers and patients may still be vague, as some do not define specific prices for the care provided. 6 In other cases, such as in emergency settings or where independent contractors or provider groups are involved ( e.g., lab work or anesthesiology), consumers may not have any contractual relationship with a medical provider that provides care and then sends a bill. 7

Consumers consistently report being confused about medical billing practices. 8 One reason for this is the variation in how medical providers bill their patients. In most cases, medical providers charge different rates for the same services to different payors, for example charging patients far more than what Medicare would pay for a given procedure if the patient is not covered by Medicare. 9 This, in part, stems from the fact that the pricing of medical services is heavily negotiated between providers and certain institutional payors such as insurance companies, and set by Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. As a result, healthcare providers are incentivized to initially set high list prices as starting offers in negotiations with insurers. 10 As a result, uninsured and out-of-network patients are often charged much higher prices than those ultimately agreed to with insurers for patients in their networks. 11 Even within network, prices sometimes vary by facility or department. 12 These rates often vastly exceed the cost of providing care. 13 Research has also shown that healthcare markups are higher at hospitals with more Black and Hispanic patients and at investor-owned, for-profit hospitals. 14

Further, healthcare providers sometimes charge patients for “upcoded” services, or services more expensive than what the consumer actually received. 15 A 2024 study found that, from 2010-2019, the total of upcoding expenses for Medicare Parts A, B, and C was $656 million, $2.39 billion, and $10-15 billion, respectively. 16 Upcoding is relatively widespread and has been estimated to account for 5-10 percent of total healthcare expenditures in the United States. 17

After an individual receives a medical service, they and their insurer are billed, if the individual is insured. Some healthcare providers also market medical payment products or other external financing options to their patients. 18 In some cases, providers are obligated by State or Federal laws to perform certain affirmative functions involving the medical bill or refrain from specific collection actions. 19 After any insurance payments or payment via a medical payment product are received, unpaid amounts, if any, are collected by phone calls, letters, emails, and offers of payment plans or settlements. 20 Hospitals and other healthcare providers in the United States are increasingly outsourcing medical billing and collection activities to third parties, such as “Revenue Cycle Management” firms, which are often funded by private equity. 21 One estimate projects the domestic market for Revenue Cycle Management companies to grow by 10.2 percent annually until 2030. 22 Unpaid medical bills may also be assigned to more traditional debt collectors, including those that specialize in medical debt, placed with an attorney for litigation, or, more rarely, sold to a debt buyer.

The CFPB has observed and reported on many issues with how debt collectors collect medical debt in the United States. For example, the CFPB has brought enforcement actions against debt collectors for collecting on disputed medical debts without adequate substantiation. 23 The CFPB has also previously described reports from consumers who have received collections notices for medical debts they should or do not owe. Specifically, consumers have reported receiving collections notices for debts that have or should have been covered by insurance, government payors, hospital financial assistance programs, or that the patient has otherwise paid. 24 Consumers also have reported receiving collections notices for debts they believe they do not owe under State or Federal law.

Further, many debt collectors do not have timely access to healthcare providers' billing and payment information, increasing the likelihood that the debt collector collects on an amount that is not owed, such as a bill that has already been paid. 26 Many consumers have reported difficulties receiving verification of medical debts for which they have received collections notices. 27 In some cases, debt collectors either may not have or refuse to provide to a consumer upon request proof of insurance payments, documentation confirming that the amount billed complies with State law and other affirmative collection requirements, such as hospital financial assistance, or other documents that would demonstrate the validity of the debt and the accuracy of the demanded amount.

The FDCPA's protections are enforced by the CFPB, by other Federal regulators, by individual consumers, and, under certain circumstances, by States. 28 And the CFPB is responsible for issuing rules regarding the FDCPA. 29 To the extent a person qualifies as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and its implementing Regulation F, that person is subject to the FDCPA and Regulation F. 30 The FDCPA and Regulation F prohibit the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt,”  31 including, for example, any false representation of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.”  32 The FDCPA and Regulation F also prohibit the use of “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt,”  33 including, for example, the “collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”  34 The CFPB reminds debt collectors that these FDCPA prohibitions interact with other Federal and State laws in a variety of ways that could create liability for debt collectors operating in the medical debt market.

The CFPB also reminds debt collectors that sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692f(1) impose strict liability. First, these two provisions include no scienter requirement, in contrast to several others that do. 35 Second, the statute differentiates between intentional and unintentional violations. 36 As many courts have held, 37 imposing strict liability for violations of these provisions is therefore the best reading of the plain language, consistent with the statute's overall structure, and consonant with Congress' intent. 38

Section 808(1) of the FDCPA prohibits, in relevant part, the collection of any amount “unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”  39 And section 807(2)(A) prohibits any false representation of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.”  40

Under these provisions, debt collectors must only collect or attempt to collect the amount that a consumer, in fact, owes at the time of a debt collection action after all appropriate deductions for partial payments by the consumer or third parties are made. The amounts due on a medical bill can often be adjusted multiple times, in light of payments made by consumers themselves or by third parties, such as insurers. Providers may also agree to accept a reduced amount in full satisfaction of the bill, or reduce the amount billed pursuant to a financial assistance policy or program.

Under the FDCPA, the “amount [ ] expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt” refers only to the remaining balance on a debt that is fully owed by the consumer after any payments that reduce the debt's remaining balance are deducted because such payments reduce the amount that the consumer is obligated to pay under the original agreement. Accordingly, seeking to collect an amount that does not account for partial payments or changes to the bill made by the provider would violate the FDCPA's prohibitions against unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices because the amount has not been expressly agreed to. In other words, once a partial payment has been made toward an agreed-to amount, collection or attempted collection of the full amount without accounting for the partial payment is collection of an amount greater than that agreed to or permitted by law. Such collection or attempted collection would also violate the FDCPA's prohibitions against deceptive or misleading debt collection practices because it would misrepresent the amount of the debt actually owed. 41 Because payments toward a debt might be made at any time, debt collectors are responsible for ensuring that the correct collection amount is sought during each attempt at collection.

Section 808(1) of the FDCPA prohibits, in relevant part, the collection of any amount “unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”  42 An “amount expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” means only a debt that the consumer is legally obligated to pay. If a Federal or State law relieves consumers of the obligation to pay for medical costs, in whole or in part, then collection of those costs is not “permitted by law” but rather prohibited by law. Thus, any amount that a consumer is not obligated to pay by operation of Federal or State law, is not an “amount . . . permitted by law.” Nor is the amount collectible as an “amount [ ] expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt” since contractual terms that contravene Federal or State law are unenforceable as contrary to public policy. 43

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Bell Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2024 (89 FR 38841). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked barrel nuts on Model 412EP helicopters. According to Bell, the root cause for cracking can vary from corrosion damage, high time in service, or hydrogen embrittlement. Barrel nut cracking can also cause loss of torque on the associated bolt and subsequent bolt cracking. Due to design similarities, Model 212, 412, and 412CF helicopters are also affected.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, for certain serial-numbered Model 212, 412CF, 412, and 412EP helicopters, replacing the upper left-hand (LH) steel alloy barrel nut and bolt with a new nickel alloy barrel nut, retainer, and bolt. For certain other serial-numbered Model 412 and 412EP helicopters, the FAA proposed to require removing the upper LH steel alloy barrel nut, inspecting the removed upper LH steel alloy barrel nut and replacing it with a nickel alloy barrel nut and retainer, and either inspecting or replacing the upper LH bolt. For those serial-numbered Model 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters, the FAA also proposed to require removing the upper right-hand (RH), lower LH, and lower RH steel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting those removed steel alloy barrel nuts and replacing them with new nickel alloy barrel nuts and retainers, and either inspecting or replacing the upper RH, lower LH, and lower RH bolts. Thereafter for those helicopters, as well as for one additional serial-numbered Model 412/412EP helicopter, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the torque applied on each bolt to determine if the torque has stabilized and, depending on the results, replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware and repeating the torque inspections, or applying torque stripes. For all applicable helicopters, the FAA proposed to require repetitively inspecting the torque applied on each bolt within a longer-term compliance time interval and, depending on the results, replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware and repeating the torque inspections and stabilization, or applying torque stripes. Additionally, for all applicable helicopters, within a longer-term compliance time interval, the FAA proposed to require repetitively replacing the upper LH bolt and inspecting the other three bolts and, depending on the results, taking corrective action. Following accomplishment of those actions, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the torque applied on each bolt to determine if the torque has stabilized and, depending on the results, replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware and repeating the torque inspections, or applying torque stripes. Lastly, the FAA proposed to prohibit installing steel alloy barrel nuts on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from Bell requesting changes to the Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information section in the NPRM (the Differences Between This AD and the Referenced Material section in this final rule). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

In the NPRM, the FAA explained that while the service information specifies checking torque, the proposed AD would require inspecting the torque. Bell requested the FAA change the torque inspection to a torque check consistent with the terminology in its manuals and in the service information required by this AD.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA's regulatory definition of “maintenance” includes inspections but does not include checks. In certain ADs, the FAA uses the term “check” in limited situations when allowing a pilot to perform actions as an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations. For this AD, the specified torque verification requirement is a maintenance action that must be performed by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3. Accordingly, this AD must use the term “inspection.”

In the NPRM, the FAA explained that for stabilizing the tail boom attachment hardware torque, the service information does not specify actions for if the torque on a bolt is below the minimum allowable torque, and therefore the proposed AD would require several actions. Bell stated that certain actions such as replacing the bolt, inspecting the associated barrel but, and repeating the torque inspection, are mandated by Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 412-21-187, Revision A, dated February 23, 2022, part II (torque stabilization) and part III (repetitive longer-term torque inspection) of ASB 412-21-187, Revision A, February 23, 2022.

The torque stabilization procedures in part II of the Bell service bulletins specify corrective action if the torque has not stabilized after checking the torque up to three times maximum. However, the procedures do not specify any corrective action if the torque is below the minimum allowable torque limit as a result of any individual instance of a torque stabilization inspection. Similarly, the repetitive longer-term torque inspection procedures in part III of the Bell service bulletins specify additional actions if the torque is below the minimum allowable torque limit as a result of an inspection. However, the FAA determined that those part III procedures are somewhat vague and may be interpreted in more than one way. Thus, this AD contains specific actions for addressing torque below the minimum limits. The FAA has clarified this explanation in the Differences Between This AD and the Referenced Material section of this final rule.

In the NPRM, the FAA explained the proposed AD would require replacing the upper LH bolt and visually inspecting the upper RH and lower bolts within 5,000 hours TIS or 5 years, while the service information did not contain those actions. Bell stated that its service bulletins specify that the maintenance manual will be revised to include those actions. Bell also cited the 5,000 hour/5-year inspection in the Bell Model 412/412EP Maintenance Manual, Issue 001, dated May 31, 2023.

The FAA has revised the Differences Between This AD and the Referenced Material in this final rule to explain that the referenced material specifies that the 5,000 hours TIS or 5 year threshold actions will be incorporated into the maintenance manual.

Since the NPRM published, the FAA determined that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD incorrectly included some serial-numbered helicopters that are not eligible for an FAA airworthiness certificate. Therefore, the FAA has revised the applicability of this AD to remove those helicopters. The FAA has also updated the model for serial number 37052 in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD to Model 412EP, since it is currently registered as such.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed the following Bell ASBs, each Revision A, and each dated February 23, 2022. This material specifies procedures for replacing the steel alloy barrel nuts with nickel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting and replacing the tail boom attachment hardware, stabilizing the tail boom attachment hardware torque, applying torque seals, and inspecting the torque.

• ASB 212-21-166 for Model 212 helicopters,

• ASB 412-21-187 for Model 412/412EP helicopters, and

• ASB 412CF-21-72 for Model 412CF helicopters.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The referenced material specifies checking torque, whereas this AD requires inspecting torque because that action must be accomplished by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3.

When stabilizing the tail boom attachment hardware torque, the referenced material does not clearly specify actions for each time the torque is below the minimum limit during any torque stabilization inspection, whereas this AD requires replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware, stabilizing the torque of the replaced hardware set, and applying a torque stripe.

This AD requires replacing each upper LH bolt with a new (zero total hours TIS) bolt and visually inspecting the upper RH, lower LH, and lower RH bolts within a 5,000 hours TIS or 5 year threshold, whereas the referenced material states that these actions will be incorporated into the maintenance manual.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 105 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

For the initial requirements for certain helicopters, replacing the four steel alloy barrel nuts with new nickel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting or replacing up to four bolts, inspecting and stabilizing the torque, and applying torque stripes will take up to approximately 8.5 work-hours for an estimated labor cost of up to $723. The parts cost for the four new nickel alloy barrel nuts (including retainers) is approximately $680. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt is approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts is approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost to apply torque stripes is a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions is up to approximately $1,866 per helicopter.

For all applicable helicopters, inspecting the torque applied on each bolt will take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,925 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

For all applicable helicopters, replacing an upper LH bolt, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 5 work-hours. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt is approximately $196 and the parts cost to apply a torque stripe is a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions is up to approximately $621 per helicopter and $65,205 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle. Inspecting one of the other bolts, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 3.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $298 per bolt and $31,290 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. If required, replacing a bolt following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time and a parts cost of approximately $89.

If required as a result of failing a torque inspection, visually inspecting a barrel nut, replacing a bolt, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 5.5 work-hours per failed hardware set. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt is approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts is approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost to apply a torque stripe is a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions is $664 (upper LH bolt) or $557 (other bolts), per failed hardware set. If required, replacing a barrel nut following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time with a parts cost for a barrel nut (including retainer) of approximately $173.

If required as a result of failing a torque stabilization, replacing a barrel nut, visually inspecting a bolt, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 5.5 work-hours and the parts cost for a barrel nut (including retainer) is approximately $73. The estimated cost for these actions is $541. If required, replacing the bolt following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time with a parts cost for an upper LH bolt of approximately $196 and a parts cost for the other bolts of approximately $89 per bolt.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include Docket No. FAA-2024-2324 and Project Identifier AD-2024-00514-T at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wayne Ha, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5238; email: Wayne.Ha@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received a report indicating cracked and severed structure was found in the aft fuselage cant bulkhead at STA 1178.225 and vertical stabilizer rear spar installation, on a Boeing Model 717-200 airplane. The cant bulkhead and vertical stabilizer rear spar structure on Boeing Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes are similar to that of the Model 717-200 airplane and therefore are susceptible to cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-24-0457-01B(R1) and Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-24-0456-01B(R1), both dated September 4, 2024. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This material specifies procedures for a one-time detailed inspection of the aft fuselage cant bulkhead (at STA 1178.225 for Model 717-200 airplanes, STA 942.225 for Model DC-9-10 and DC-9-20 series airplanes, STA 1121.225 for Model DC-9-30 series airplanes, STA 1197.225 for Model DC-9-40 series airplanes, and STA 1292.225 for Model DC-9-50 series airplanes) and vertical stabilizer rear spar structure for any crack and, if any crack is found during the detailed inspection, obtaining and following approved repair instructions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described. This AD also requires sending the inspection findings to the airplane manufacturer if any crack is found during the one-time detailed inspection. This AD also requires a detailed inspection of the cant bulkhead (at STA 1178.225 for Model 717-200 airplanes, STA 942.225 for Model DC-9-10 and DC-9-20 series airplanes, STA 1121.225 for Model DC-9-30 series airplanes, STA 1197.225 for Model DC-9-40 series airplanes, and STA 1292.225 for Model DC-9-50 series airplanes), left and right sides, between longerons 11L through 11R at the forward and aft surfaces; upper cap; upper (cap) doubler; bulkhead webs and doublers; stiffeners; lower tee cap and strap; and vertical stabilizer rear spar cap and web for any discrepancy, if any of the following conditions occur during any phase of flight: (1) high drag/side loads or unusual ground handling, (2) a hard or overweight landing, (3) severe turbulence (or rough air (turbulence)) or an excessive maneuver, or (4) high compressive loads to the hydraulic tail bumper/strut (for Model 717-200 airplanes) or auxiliary gear (tail bumper) (for Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes). A discrepancy includes buckles, distortion, cracks, loose or missing fasteners, or any other obvious indication of damage.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracked and severed structure in the aft fuselage cant bulkhead and vertical stabilizer rear spar, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Further, analysis has shown that an airplane with this unsafe condition is not capable of sustaining a limit load event, which would be catastrophic. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

The compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary reporting that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this reporting:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued AD 2021-15-14, Amendment 39-21661 (86 FR 39942, July 26, 2021) (AD 2021-15-14) for various restricted category helicopters. AD 2021-15-14 was prompted by an accident involving a Model UH-1B helicopter and two forced landings involving Model UH-1H and UH-1F helicopters, due to tail boom attachment structure failures. Each of the three events involved a failure of the upper left-hand (LH) tail boom attachment fitting, which is the most heavily loaded of the four tail boom attach points. The FAA issued AD 2021-15-14 to address fatigue cracking of tail boom attachment fittings, cap angles, longerons, and bolts.

Due to their similarity to Model UH-1B, UH-1H, and UH-1F helicopters, the FAA determined that Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 210 helicopters are also affected by the same unsafe condition and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose the same actions as those required in AD 2021-15-14. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2022 (87 FR 34587) to amend 14 CFR part 39 and would have applied to Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 210 helicopters. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the helicopter's existing rotorcraft flight manual to incorporate pre-flight checks; removing excess paint and sealant and cleaning certain parts; and repetitively inspecting structural components that attach the tail boom to the fuselage. Depending on the inspection results, the FAA proposed to require repairing or replacing components or re-bonding the structure.

Based on comments received on the NPRM, the FAA determined changes to the proposed required actions were necessary. Accordingly, the FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 210 helicopters. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2024 (89 FR 38846).

In the SNPRM, for Bell Model 204B helicopters, the FAA proposed to require, with the tail boom assembly removed, removing the upper LH bolt from service and inspecting the bolt's associated attachment hardware and, depending on the inspection results, removing the associated nut from service. The FAA also proposed to require visually inspecting each bulkhead, bolt hole, attachment fitting, the three other nuts, the upper right-hand (RH) bolt, and two lower bolts, including the bolt shank and head radii. Depending on inspection results, the FAA proposed to require repairing or replacing an affected bulkhead or affected fitting, removing certain part-numbered nuts, removing any affected nut and its associated bolt from service, and removing any affected bolt from service.

For Bell Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters, the FAA proposed to require, with the tail boom assembly removed, removing the upper LH bolt from service and inspecting its associated barrel nut and retainer and, depending on the inspection results, removing barrel nut and retainer from service. The FAA also proposed to require visually inspecting each bulkhead, bolt hole, attachment fitting, the three other barrel nuts, associated retainers, the upper RH bolt, and two lower bolts, including the bolt shank and head radii. Depending on inspection results, the FAA proposed to require repairing or replacing an affected bulkhead or affected fitting, removing certain part-numbered barrel nuts and retainers, removing any affected barrel nuts and its associated bolt from service, and removing any affected bolt from service.

For Bell Model 210 helicopters, the FAA proposed to require, with the tail boom supported, removing the upper LH steel alloy barrel nut, retainer, and bolt from service and removing the countersunk washer and plain washers and replacing them with a new certain part-numbered nickel alloy barrel nut, new retainer, new bolt, an airworthy countersunk washer, and airworthy plain washers. The FAA also proposed to require visually inspecting the upper RH bolt and its associated hardware and, depending on the inspection results, removing the upper RH bolt and barrel nut from service. Additionally, the FAA proposed to require visually inspecting the two lower bolts and the associated barrel nuts and, depending on the inspection results, removing any affected barrel nut and its associated bolt from service and removing any affected bolt from service.

For all applicable helicopters, the FAA proposed to require, after the initial inspections have been completed, applying a coating of grease to each bolt shank only, installing the applicable hardware, and torquing each bolt. Thereafter, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the torque applied on each bolt to determine if the torque has stabilized and, depending on the results, replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware and repeating the torque inspections or applying torque stripes.

Lastly, the FAA proposed to prohibit installing certain part-numbered steel alloy nuts on Model 204B helicopters and certain part-numbered steel alloy barrel nuts on Model 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 210 helicopters.

The FAA received comments on the SNPRM from Helicopter Maintenance Corporation. The commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to allow credit for previous compliance with the visual inspection of the tail boom attach points and bulkhead, replacement of affected hardware, and the recurring inspections involving removal of the tail boom. Helicopter Maintenance Corporation stated that aircraft that are in compliance with ASB 205-21-118 should only be obligated to comply with any differences between the AD and the alert service bulletin.

Paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance unless the actions have already been done. Therefore, where this AD requires actions without incorporating Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 210-21-15, Revision A, dated February 23, 2022 (ASB 210-21-15, Rev A), by reference, operators may take credit for those actions they if were done before the effective date of this AD. Also, where this AD requires actions in accordance with ASB 210-21-15, Rev A, operators may take credit for those actions only if they were done before the effective date of this AD using ASB 210-21-15, Rev A; this AD does not allow credit for those actions if previously done using the original release of ASB 210-21-15, (dated January 27, 2022). The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM.

The FAA reviewed Bell ASB 210-21-15, Rev A. This material specifies procedures for replacing the steel alloy barrel nuts with nickel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting and replacing the tail boom attachment hardware, stabilizing the tail boom attachment hardware torque, applying torque seals, and subsequently checking the torque.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA also reviewed Bell ASB 205-21-118, Bell ASB 204B-21-75, and Bell ASB 205B-21-72, each Revision A and dated February 23, 2022. This material specifies the same procedures as ASB 210-21-15, Rev A.

The related material specifies checking torque, whereas this AD requires inspecting torque because that action is a maintenance action that must be performed by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3.

When stabilizing the tail boom attachment hardware torque, the related material does not clearly specify actions for each time the torque is below the minimum limit during any torque stabilization inspection, whereas this AD requires replacing and inspecting certain tail boom attachment point hardware, stabilizing the torque of the replaced hardware set, and applying torque stripes.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 62 (five Model 204B helicopters, fifty-three Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters, and four Model 210 helicopters) of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

For the initial requirements for Model 204B helicopters, inspecting or replacing up to four bolts (which includes applying a coating of grease), inspecting each bulkhead, inspecting each fitting and bolt hole, inspecting and stabilizing the torque, and applying torque stripes will take up to approximately 8.5 work-hours for an estimated labor cost of up to $723. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt will be approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts will be approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost for four new nuts will be approximately $680. The parts cost to apply torque stripes will be a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions will be up to approximately $1,866 per helicopter and $9,330 for the U.S. fleet.

For the initial requirements for Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters, replacing the four steel alloy barrel nuts with new nickel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting or replacing up to four bolts (which includes applying a coating of grease), inspecting each bulkhead, inspecting and stabilizing the torque, and applying torque stripes will take up to approximately 8.5 work-hours for an estimated labor cost of up to $723. The parts cost for the four new nickel alloy barrel nuts (including retainers) will be approximately $680. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt will be approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts will be approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost to apply torque stripes will be a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions will be up to approximately $1,866 per helicopter and $98,898 for the U.S. fleet.

For the initial requirements for Model 210 helicopters, replacing the four steel alloy barrel nuts with new nickel alloy barrel nuts, inspecting or replacing up to four bolts (which includes applying a coating of grease), inspecting and stabilizing the torque, and applying torque stripes will take up to approximately 8.5 work-hours for an estimated labor cost of up to $723. The parts cost for the four new nickel alloy barrel nuts (including retainers) will be approximately $680. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt will be approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts will be approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost to apply torque stripes will be a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions will be up to approximately $1,866 per helicopter and $7,464 for the U.S. fleet.

For all applicable helicopters, inspecting the torque applied on each bolt will take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $5,270 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

For all applicable helicopters, replacing an upper LH bolt, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 5 work-hours. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt will be approximately $196 and the parts cost to apply a torque stripe will be a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions will be up to approximately $621 per helicopter and $38,502 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle. Inspecting one of the other bolts, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 3.5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $298 per other bolt and $18,476 for the U.S. fleet per other bolt per inspection cycle. If required, replacing a bolt following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time and the parts cost will be approximately $89.

If required as a result of failing any torque inspection required by this AD, visually inspecting a nut or a barrel nut, replacing a bolt, stabilizing the torque, and applying a torque stripe will take up to approximately 5.5 work-hours per failed hardware set. The parts cost for an upper LH bolt will be approximately $196 and the parts cost for the other bolts will be approximately $89 per bolt. The parts cost to apply a torque stripe will be a nominal amount. The estimated cost for these actions will be $664 (upper LH bolt) or $557 (other bolts), per failed hardware set. If required, replacing a nut following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time and the parts cost for a nut will be approximately $89 per nut. If required, replacing a barrel nut following that inspection will take a minimal amount of additional time and a parts cost of approximately $173 per barrel nut.

The corrective action that may be needed as a result of the bulkhead inspection could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no data to determine the costs to accomplish the corrective action or the number of helicopters that may require corrective action.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Matinicus Island Airport, Matinicus Island, ME.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-1655 in the Federal Register (89 FR 50536; June 14, 2024), proposing to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Matinicus Island Airport, Matinicus Island, ME. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Matinicus Island Airport, Matinicus Island, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On December 12, 2023, OFAC issued GLs 79 and 80 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. Each GL has an expiration date of March 11, 2024 and was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov/ ) at the time of publication. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked entities are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 11, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):

(1) Limited Liability Company Kyiv Square;

(2) Highland Gold Mining Limited;

(3) Limited Liability Company Kismet Capital Group; or

(4) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, as amended; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons mentioned in paragraph (a), unless separately authorized.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity of Highland Gold Mining Limited (Highland Gold), or any entity in which Highland Gold owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, purchased prior to December 12, 2023 (“Covered Debt or Equity”), to a non-U.S. person are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 11, 2024.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of Covered Debt or Equity that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, December 12, 2023 are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 11, 2024.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of derivative contracts entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, December 12, 2023 that (i) include a blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license as a counterparty or (ii) are linked to Covered Debt or Equity are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 11, 2024, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).

(d) Paragraph (a) of this general license does not authorize:

(1) U.S. persons to sell, or to facilitate the sale of, Covered Debt or Equity to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked; or

(2) U.S. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, Covered Debt or Equity, other than purchases of or investments in Covered Debt or Equity ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of Covered Debt or Equity as described in paragraph (a) of this general license.

(e) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

On October 25, 2023, OFAC issued GL 8H to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. GL 8H was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 involving one or more of the following entities that are related to energy are authorized, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, May 1, 2024:

(1) State Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs Vnesheconombank;

(2) Public Joint Stock Company Bank Financial Corporation Otkritie;

(3) Sovcombank Open Joint Stock Company;

(4) Public Joint Stock Company Sberbank of Russia;

(5) VTB Bank Public Joint Stock Company;

(6) Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank;

(7) Public Joint Stock Company Rosbank;

(8) Bank Zenit Public Joint Stock Company;

(9) Bank Saint-Petersburg Public Joint Stock Company;

(10) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest; or

(11) the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

(b) For the purposes of this general license, the term “related to energy” means the extraction, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, petroleum products, natural gas, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels, or uranium in any form, as well as the development, production, generation, transmission, or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, thermal, and renewable energy sources.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 1A under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Certain Sovereign Debt of the Russian Federation;

(2) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(3) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation; or

(4) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

(d) Effective October 25, 2023, General License No. 8G, dated May 5, 2023, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 8H.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

On November 8, 2023, OFAC issued GL 76A to clarify that GL 76, which was issued on November 2, 2023, applies to Public Joint Stock Company Saint Petersburg Exchange. Like GL 76, GL 76A has an expiration date of January 31, 2024. GL 76A was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked entities (collectively, the “Blocked Entities”) are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 31, 2024, provided that any payment to a Blocked Entity is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):

(1) Sistema Public Joint Stock Financial Corporation;

(2) Public Joint Stock Company Saint Petersburg Exchange;

(3) Limited Liability Company Arctic LNG 2; or

(4) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Correspondent or Payable-Through Accounts and Processing of Transactions Involving Certain Foreign Financial Institutions;

(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the Blocked Entities described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

(c) Effective November 8, 2023, General License No. 76, dated November 2, 2023, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 76A.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 22, for the Monte Foundation Fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. through 9 p.m. on October 13, 2024.

The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the Monterey Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 1,000 feet out from the fireworks launch site on the Capitola Pier, in Capitola, CA centered on position 36°58′8.4″ N, 121°57′11.6″ W (NAD 83). This zone will be in effect starting from 7:30 p.m., which is 30 minutes prior to the fireworks display scheduled to begin at approximately 8 p.m. and conclude at 9 p.m. on October 13, 2024.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol defined as a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. Additionally, each person granted permission to enter the zone who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol must obey the order or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol, may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 23, for the Rio Vista Bass Dery Fireworks Display from 10 a.m. through 9:25 p.m. on October 12, 2024.

The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 10 a.m. through 8 p.m. on October 12, 2024, the fireworks barge will load pyrotechnics at The Dutra Group, Oly Yard located at 615 River Road, Rio Vista, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 8 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on October 12, 2024, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from the loading site to the launch site off of Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°9′19.4″ N, 121°41′15.7″ W (NAD 83), here it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. At the start of the fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 8:45 p.m. on October 12, 2024, during the 10-minute fireworks display, and 30 minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 1,000 feet out from the fireworks barge near Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°9′19.4″ N, 121°41′15.7″ W (NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from 10 a.m. through 9:25 p.m. on October 12, 2024, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. Additionally, each person granted permission to enter the zone who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol must obey the order or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CASE Act”) directed the Copyright Office to establish the Copyright Claims Board (the “CCB”), an alternative and voluntary forum for parties seeking to resolve certain copyright-related disputes that have a total monetary value of $30,000 or less. On May 17, 2022, the Copyright Office published a final rule addressing various topics governing the CCB, including how to obtain a certified official record of a CCB proceeding (the “May 17 Rule”). 1 The Office needed to promulgate a rule governing such requests due to the CASE Act's requirements for Federal court enforcement of the CCB's final determinations. Under the CASE Act, in situations where the non-prevailing party fails to comply with the final determination issued by the CCB in a proceeding, the prevailing party may “apply to [an appropriate U.S. district court] for an order confirming the relief awarded in the final determination and reducing such award to judgment.”  2 Any such application to a Federal district court must include a “certified copy of the final or amended final determination of the [CCB], as reflected in the records of the [CCB].”  3

The May 17 Rule stated that the CCB will certify the official record of a proceeding “[u]pon a written request to the Records Research and Certification Section [(“RRC”)] of the U.S. Copyright Office . . . and payment of the appropriate fee.”  4 Pursuant to this rule, the Office's general process and fees for the retrieval, copying, and certification of Office records are applied to requests for a certified official record of a final CCB determination. The Office's combined fees for retrieval, copying, and certification, however, are likely to result in an amount that is more than the cost of initiating a proceeding before the CCB. 5

This final rule creates a different process and fee for retrieving, copying, and certifying CCB determinations. Instead of making such certification requests to RRC, the final rule makes the CCB itself responsible for handling these requests. 6 Further, to better reflect the statutory requirement that the “final determination” is the required documentation that must be submitted to a Federal district court to confirm the CCB award, 7 the rule reflects that only the final or amended final determination must be certified and not the entire record. Finally, the Office believes that until it engages in a fee study, 8 it is reasonable to set the new fee at $15—a fee very similar to what it charges for copying records. 9 This lower fee is reasonable because, in contrast to the challenges of locating and certifying other Office records, the CCB's records are located on a dedicated electronic filing and case management platform (known as “eCCB”) where they can be quickly retrieved for certification.

The Office is aware that there already may be circumstances where the CCB has issued a final determination, and a non-prevailing party has failed to pay damages (or has failed otherwise to comply with the relief awarded in the Board's final determination) in a timely manner. While prevailing parties could pay the currently applicable fee for records retrieval and certification, consistent with the goals of a small-claims tribunal to be affordable and efficient, it is appropriate to provide such parties immediate relief from paying these higher costs and streamlining the process to make such requests. For these reasons, the Office finds good cause to issue a direct final rule in this proceeding without first engaging in a public notice and comment process. 10 Similarly, the Office finds that engaging in a notice and comment procedure would effectively unduly delay relief to prevailing parties in CCB proceedings and therefore finds good cause exists to issue these regulations as a final rule with an immediate effective date. 11

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:

On November 14, 2023, September 6, 2023, and October 11, 2023, the District, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively, formally submitted requests to update the 2008 8-Hour Ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) maintenance plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Area (hereafter “the Washington Area” or “the Area”). These revisions update the Area's maintenance plan to include revised onroad and nonroad MVEBs for VOCs and NO X that reflect the updated EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES3.04) model.

On June 3, 2024 (89 FR 47474), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Area. The Area submitted SIP revisions that included an update to the MVEBs for VOCs and NO X , that were initially developed using the MOVES2014a model, for the years 2025 and 2030. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of revisions to update the Area's maintenance plan to include revised onroad and nonroad MVEBs for VOCs and NO X that reflect the updated EPA MOVES3.04 model and increased onroad vehicle emission rates.

EPA's analysis of the Area's SIP submittal indicates that maintenance of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS will continue to be demonstrated for the Area, after updating the 2025 and 2030 MVEBs, for NO X and VOC, using MOVES3.0.4 and updated planning assumptions. The details of the Area's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action are further explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Comments on the June 3, 2024 (89 FR 47474) NPRM were due on or before July 3, 2024. EPA received one comment that was not relevant to this action and will not be addressed here.

The updated 2025 and 2030 MVEBs, for NO X and VOC, will ensure that transportation emissions conform with each state's SIP. Table 1 in this document, provides the newly revised MVEBs for 2025 and 2030 along with the retained 2014 MVEBs from the 2017 plan (using MOVES2014a) in tons per day (tpd). The Area added only portions of the total available safety margins for VOC and NO X when developing the revised MVEBs for 2025 and 2030 for the projected onroad mobile VOC and NO X emissions. The allocation will add 5.58 tpd of VOC and 9.30 tpd of NO X from the safety margins to the 2025 emission inventories, and 4.35 tpd of VOC and 6.85 tpd of NO X from the safety margins to the 2030 emission inventories.

EPA has evaluated the Area's submittal and has determined that the updated MVEBs and the allocation of the safety margins to the 2025 and 2030 budgets for the Area meet the requirements of the transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93 and are approvable. Therefore, EPA is approving the Washington Area's SIP revision updating the MVEBs and the onroad and nonroad (except for marine, airport, and railroad) mobile emissions for VOC and NO X for the years 2025 and 2030. Additionally, EPA is approving the allocation of a portion of the safety margins for VOC and NO X in the ozone maintenance plan to the 2025 and 2030 budgets.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code sec. 10.1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent, and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity Law, Va. Code sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, the EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because the EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, the EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, section 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;

This action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this action is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, or District of Columbia, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

The District of Columbia, State of Maryland, and Commonwealth of Virginia did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of the SIP submittals; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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 to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the West Virginia SIP revision updating its incorporation by reference of EPA's NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On December 20, 2023 (88 Federal Register (FR) 87988), the EPA proposed to approve California's contingency measure SIP submissions for the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in California. Specifically, the SIP submissions include the “PM 2.5 Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision (May 18, 2023)” (herein referred to as the “SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP”), revisions to San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or “District”) Rule 4901 (amended May 18, 2023)  1 that add PM 2.5 NAAQS contingency provisions that we refer to herein as the “Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure,” and revisions to Rule 8051 (amended September 21, 2023)  2 that add PM 2.5 NAAQS contingency provisions that we refer to herein as the “Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure.” CARB submitted the SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP and the Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure on June 8, 2023, 3 and the Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure on October 16, 2023, 4 as revisions to the California SIP.

In addition, in a separate proposed rule also published on December 20, 2023, the EPA proposed approval of a third contingency measure, applicable to light-duty on-road motor vehicles, and the related emission reductions from the third measure are accounted for in this final rule. 5 We refer to the third contingency measure as the “Smog Check Contingency Measure.”

We proposed to approve the SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, the Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure, and the Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure because we determined that they, along with emission reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure, comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1014. We collectively refer herein to CARB's contingency measure SIP submissions for the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley as the State's “2023 SIP Submissions.”

In sections I and II of the proposed rule, we presented background information on the 1997 annual and 24-hour, the 2006 24-hour and 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, the nonattainment designations and classifications of the San Joaquin Valley for these PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the resultant contingency measure SIP obligations; summarized our prior PM 2.5 contingency measure findings of failure to submit  6 and disapprovals for the San Joaquin Valley;  7 described the SIP submissions at issue in this action; and provided the basis for our preliminary conclusion that the SIP submissions met applicable procedural requirements. 8 In section III of the proposed rule, we summarized the contingency measure SIP requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations, relevant EPA guidance, and legal precedent, including a brief discussion of relevant decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  9 and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 10   11

In addition, we described the EPA's long-standing approach to contingency measures and the EPA's revised approach for addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements, as presented in the EPA's draft guidance, entitled “Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter (DRAFT—3/17/23—Public Review Version),” herein referred to as the “Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.”  12 Two principal differences between the draft revised guidance and existing guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures should achieve  13 and the timing for when the emission reductions from the contingency measures should occur. The Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance also provides recommended procedures for developing a demonstration, if applicable, that the area lacks sufficient feasible measures to achieve one year's worth (OYW) of reductions, building on existing guidance that the state should provide a reasoned justification for why the smaller amount of emission reductions is appropriate.

In section IV of the proposed rule, we described the two specific District PM 2.5 contingency measures proposed for approval in this action ( i.e., the District's Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure and Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure) and provided our evaluation of the measures relative to the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. In short, we preliminarily concluded that the contingency measures met the requirements for such measures because both measures are designed to be both prospective and conditional, include appropriate triggering mechanisms for requirements, and are structured to be implemented in a timely manner without significant further action by the District, CARB, or the EPA and to achieve the estimated emission reductions within roughly a year or two of the triggering event. 14 Furthermore, both requirements that would be triggered are not required for any other CAA purpose, and the emission reductions from the measures are not included in any reasonable further progress (RFP) or attainment demonstration for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. For these reasons, we proposed to approve District's Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure and Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure. 15

In section V of the proposed rule, we summarized how the District and CARB had applied the revised approach to fulfilling the contingency measure SIP requirement in the context of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, and we presented our evaluation thereof. 16 Specifically, we discussed our evaluation of the District's and CARB's identification and evaluation of potential control measures, adoption of certain contingency measures, comparison of those contingency measures against OYW of emission reductions, and reasoned justification for not adopting further contingency measures, which we recap in the following paragraphs.

In the SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, the District described its ongoing stationary source regulatory efforts, identified potential control measures as candidate contingency measures, and analyzed the technological and/or economic feasibility of each candidate measure, including the feasibility of implementing such measures within 60 days and achieving the resulting emission reductions within one to two years of the triggering event. 17 The District also provided more in-depth analysis of potential control measures for five source categories, ultimately adopting measures for two source categories (wood burning fireplaces/heaters and rural open areas) and providing a justification in the form of an infeasibility demonstration for not adopting contingency measures for the other three source categories (commercial charbroiling, almond harvesting, and oil and gas production combustion equipment).

Similarly, CARB identified potential mobile source control measures, assessed whether each candidate measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event and achieve emission reductions within one to two years, and then analyzed their technological and/or economic feasibility. 18 Regarding timing of emission reductions from mobile sources, CARB concluded that new engine standards and fleet regulations are not appropriate for contingency measures given the time needed for manufacturers to design, develop, and deploy cleaner engines or equipment at scale, especially for zero-emission equipment.

The District and CARB ultimately adopted three contingency measures identified through their respective evaluation processes: the Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure, the Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure. Each of these measures can be implemented without further action by the District, CARB, or the EPA and achieve emission reductions within one to two years of the triggering event, consistent with the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and the EPA's recommendations regarding timing in the Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. 19 In addition, the revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 establishing the Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure resolved deficiencies identified in the EPA's disapproval of prior contingency provisions in Rule 4901, thereby ensuring that the direct PM 2.5 and NO X emission reductions will be achieved, irrespective of which county may exceed the applicable PM 2.5 NAAQS at the time of any finding of failure to attain or other applicable determination. 20

The District then assessed how the emission reductions from the Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure would compare against OYW of progress as defined in the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. As part of our evaluation and for the proposed rule, we prepared an independent assessment of the emission reductions to include the two additional contingency measures that were adopted and submitted after the submission of the SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP and to provide a comparison of the emission reductions relative to OYW of progress to the long-standing recommendation of OYW of RFP. In our proposed rule, we found that the combined 0.5873 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions from the District contingency measures (for residential wood burning and for rural open areas) would exceed both OYW of RFP (0.44-0.58 tpd, depending on the applicable PM 2.5 NAAQS) and OYW of progress (0.41-0.52 tpd, depending on the applicable PM 2.5 NAAQS). 21

With respect to NO X emissions, the combined 0.1647-0.1977 tpd emission reductions from all three contingency measures would provide a portion of the reductions toward OYW of emission reductions and, after consideration of interpollutant trading of excess direct PM 2.5 emission reductions from the two District contingency measures for equivalent NO X emission reductions, would amount to 1.3 percent (%) to 6.3% of OYW of RFP or 8.8% to 15.7% of OYW of progress for NO X . 22

You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in or employ persons working in crop production agriculture where pesticides are applied. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000);

• Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421);

• Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110);

• Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products (NAICS code 113210);

• Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and 115114);

• Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112);

• Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115);

• Pesticide Handling in Forestry (NAICS code 115310);

• Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320);

• Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 813319);

• Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code 813930); and

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).

If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This action is issued under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 through 136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.

EPA is finalizing the AEZ rule that was proposed on March 13, 2023 (88 FR 15346; FRL-8528-03-OCSPP) (hereinafter “2023 Proposed Rule”; Ref. 1), as proposed and without change. In so doing, the Agency is revising certain AEZ requirements of the WPS that were amended by EPA in a final rule published on October 30, 2020 (hereinafter “2020 AEZ Rule”; Ref. 2). As further explained in Unit II.A.4., the effective date of the 2020 AEZ Rule was stayed pursuant to a court order; that is, the 2020 AEZ Rule has not gone into effect. This rulemaking, once in effect, replaces the requirements that were published under the 2020 AEZ Rule but never went into effect.

Specifically, EPA is rescinding three of the amendments outlined in the 2020 AEZ Rule and reinstating the related AEZ requirements as published in a final rule on November 2, 2015 (hereinafter “2015 WPS”; Ref. 3), with certain modifications. The following three amendments from the 2020 AEZ Rule are being rescinded:

1. The area where the AEZ applies. This rule rescinds language from the 2020 AEZ Rule that limited the applicability of the AEZ to the agricultural employer's property. As such, with this rule, applications must be suspended whenever someone is within the AEZ, regardless of whether that person is on or off the agricultural establishment.

2. The exception to application suspension requirements for property easements. Under this rule, applications must be suspended whenever someone is within an AEZ, even if they are not employed by the establishment and in an area subject to an easement that prevents the agricultural employer from temporarily excluding those individuals from that area.

3. The distances from the application equipment in which entry restrictions associated with ongoing ground-based pesticide applications apply. Under this rule, the AEZ distance is 100 feet for ground-based fine spray applications and 25 feet, generally, for ground-based applications using medium or larger droplet sizes.

EPA is also amending the AEZ provisions in the 2015 WPS as follows:

1. Clarifies when suspended applications may be resumed. This rule specifies that applications that were suspended due to individuals entering an AEZ may be resumed after those individuals have left the AEZ. As a result, this rule supersedes EPA's previous interpretive guidance on resuming applications in circumstances when individuals off-establishment are in the AEZ (see Unit VI.B.; Refs. 4 through 6).

2. Provides an exemption allowing owners and their immediate family to remain within the AEZ in certain scenarios. Under this rule, farm owners and members of their immediate family may shelter within closed structures within an AEZ during pesticide applications, provided that the owner has instructed the handlers that only the owner's immediate family are inside the closed shelter and that the application should proceed despite their presence. Handlers may proceed with applications under these circumstances.

3. Replaces the volume median diameter (VMD) criteria with droplet size classification standards. Under this rule, the standard that will be used as the droplet size criterion when making AEZ distance determinations based on droplet size is the technical standard established by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). ASAE was renamed the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) in 2005, which is also endorsed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Although ASABE is now the organization of record for these standards, the specific size standard reflects the name of the organization that existed at the time that the standard was established.

Each of these changes is explained in more detail in Unit IV.

EPA reexamined the 2020 AEZ Rule consistent with Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 7), and in response to a factual error that EPA discovered in the 2020 AEZ Rule's preamble while compiling the administrative record for litigation (see Unit II.A.4 and Unit II.A.5.). As a result of EPA's reexamination of the 2020 AEZ Rule, the Agency determined that certain amended AEZ requirements in the 2020 AEZ Rule should be rescinded, with several protections from the 2015 WPS regulatory text being reinstated. EPA determined that reinstatement of these protections from the 2015 WPS will be more effective at reducing potential exposures from ongoing pesticide applications and promote public health for all populations and communities near agricultural establishments. In addition, EPA's analysis supporting the 2015 WPS shows that these protections will better support the Agency's efforts to reduce disproportionate risks associated with agricultural pesticide exposures that currently fall on populations and communities with a history of environmental justice concerns, particularly agricultural employees ( i.e., workers and handlers), the employees' families, and the communities that live near establishments that use pesticides (Ref. 3). Reinstating the regulatory text for certain AEZ requirements from the 2015 WPS will be associated with minimal cost to the regulated community, as described in Unit III. These revisions are consistent with FIFRA's mandate to protect health and the environment against unreasonable risk to humans or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.

EPA assessed the potential incremental economic impacts of this action, as compared to both the 2015 WPS and the 2020 AEZ Rule. EPA used this approach because the 2015 WPS has continued to provide the operative regulatory language for the AEZ requirements during the court-ordered stay of the 2020 AEZ Rule (see Unit II.A.4.). As compared to the 2015 WPS, EPA determined that the 2020 AEZ Rule had minimal impacts (see Unit III.A.). Similarly, EPA found that the impact of the changes in this final rule on agricultural establishments is likely to be small relative to the 2020 AEZ Rule (see Unit III.B.). EPA's analysis addresses other implications of this action as well (see Unit III.C.).

EPA implements FIFRA's mandate to limit adverse effects on human health in part through the WPS regulation codified at 40 CFR part 170. The WPS is a uniform set of requirements for workers, handlers, and their employers that are generally applicable to all agricultural pesticides and are incorporated onto agricultural pesticide labels by reference. The WPS is intended to reduce the risk of illness and injury to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who may be exposed to pesticides while working. The WPS requirements are generally applicable to pesticides used in crop production agriculture and made applicable to certain pesticide products through FIFRA's pesticide product registration process by inclusion of a statement requiring WPS compliance on the product label. The WPS requirements complement the product-specific labeling restrictions and are intended to minimize occupational exposures generally. When a registered pesticide label includes a statement requiring compliance with the WPS, any failure to comply with the WPS when using a pesticide is a violation of FIFRA.

The risk reduction measures of the WPS may be characterized as being one of three types: information, protection, and mitigation. To ensure that employees will be informed about exposure to pesticides, the WPS requires that workers and handlers receive training on general pesticide safety, and that employers provide access to information about the pesticides with which workers and handlers may have contact. To protect workers and handlers from pesticide exposure, the WPS prohibits the application of pesticides in a manner that exposes workers or other persons, generally prohibits workers and other persons from being in areas being treated with pesticides, and generally prohibits workers from entering a treated area while a restricted-entry interval (REI) is in effect (with limited exceptions that require additional protections). In addition, the rule protects workers by requiring employers to notify them about areas on the establishment treated with pesticides through posted and/or oral warnings. The rule protects handlers by ensuring that they understand proper use of and have access to required personal protective equipment (PPE). Finally, the WPS has provisions to mitigate exposures if they do occur by requiring the employer to provide workers and handlers with an ample supply of water, soap, and towels for routine washing and emergency decontamination. The employer must also make transportation available to a medical care facility if a worker or handler may have been poisoned or injured by a pesticide and provide health care providers with information about the pesticide(s) to which the person may have been exposed.

In 2015, EPA promulgated a final rule that comprehensively revised the WPS for the first time since 1992 (Ref. 8). The 2015 WPS added several pesticide-related safety measures and strengthened elements of the existing regulation in areas including training, notification, pesticide safety and hazard communication information, and use of PPE. The 2015 WPS also implemented updated requirements for providing supplies for routine washing and emergency decontamination.

Under the WPS established in 1992 (57 FR 38101, August 21, 1992 (FRL-3374-6)), the pesticide handler's employer and the pesticide handler were required to ensure that no pesticide is applied in a manner that may contact, either directly or through drift, any agricultural worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped pesticide handler involved in the application (Ref. 8). This prohibition is often referred to as the “Do Not Contact” provision and is applicable in all situations, without limitations on distance or location of the individuals. This particular provision was carried over into the 2015 WPS revisions and has remained unchanged (Ref. 3).

Among other changes to improve public health and to build upon the existing protections of the 1992 WPS, the 2015 WPS established AEZ requirements for outdoor production application to reinforce the existing “Do Not Contact” provision and to enhance overall compliance with safe application practices intended to protect agricultural workers and bystanders from pesticide exposure from sprays and drift (Ref. 3). The AEZ is an area surrounding the point(s) of pesticide discharge from the application equipment that must generally be free of all persons during pesticide applications. The AEZ moves with the application equipment while the application is ongoing and ceases to exist around the equipment once the pesticide application ends. After the application has been completed or the application equipment has moved on to a new area, entry restrictions associated with treated areas go into effect.

The 2015 WPS requirement at 40 CFR 170.505(b) required pesticide handlers (applicators) making a pesticide application to temporarily suspend the application if any worker or other person, other than trained and equipped handlers assisting in the application, was within the AEZ. The 2015 WPS revisions further required a handler to suspend an application if a worker or other person was in any portion of the AEZ, on or off the establishment. These restrictions were intended to bolster the protections afforded by the “Do Not Contact” provision, promote an application approach aimed at reducing incidents in which people in areas adjacent to pesticide applications could be affected by either direct contact or drift, and establish a well-defined area from which people generally must be excluded during ongoing applications. The AEZ requirement was one of the many public health protection tools incorporated into the 2015 WPS rule to emphasize one of the key safety points in both the WPS and on pesticide labels: do not spray people.

As outlined in the 2015 WPS, the size of the AEZ was dependent largely on the application method used. For aerial, air blast, fumigant, smoke, mist, and fog applications, as well as sprays using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller than medium (defined as VMD of less than 294 microns), the area encompassed 100 feet from the application equipment in all directions. For other applications sprayed from a height of greater than 12 inches from the planting medium using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or larger (defined as VMD of 294 microns or greater), the area encompassed 25 feet from the application equipment in all directions. For all other applications, there was no AEZ.

On October 30, 2020, EPA published revisions to the AEZ provisions under the WPS (Ref. 1). The 2020 AEZ Rule would have modified the AEZ requirements to limit the AEZ to an agricultural employer's property where an agricultural employer can lawfully exercise control over employees or bystanders who may be within the AEZ during an application, and would have simplified the criteria for determining the AEZ distances for ground spray applications. In addition, clarifications were made on when applications may resume after being suspended due to someone entering the AEZ, as well as providing an exemption for farm owners and their immediate family so that they would not have to leave their homes or another enclosed structure when it is located within an AEZ. The 2020 AEZ Rule revisions did not include any changes to the “Do Not Contact” provision in the WPS, which still prohibited applying pesticides in a manner that may result in contact either directly or through drift. The rule was set to go into effect on December 29, 2020; however, the effective date was stayed by the court.

As explained in the Federal Register of May 16, 2022 (87 FR 29673; FRL-9803-01-OCSPP), two civil actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) on December 16, 2020, challenging the 2020 AEZ Rule (now consolidated as case number 1:20-cv-10642). Additionally, two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on December 17, 2020 (case numbers 20-4174 and 20-4203), which have been held in abeyance pending the proceedings in the district court.

On December 28, 2020, S.D.N.Y. issued an order granting plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief (Ref. 9). The court's order stayed the December 2020 effective date of the 2020 AEZ Rule and enjoined all EPA authorities who would otherwise take action to make the 2020 AEZ Rule effective from doing so. Following the December 2020 order, S.D.N.Y. issued several additional orders consented to by both EPA and the plaintiffs, further extending the preliminary injunction and staying all proceedings in the case ( e.g., Ref. 10). As a result, the 2020 AEZ Rule has never gone into effect.

Concurrent with the ongoing litigation, the 2020 AEZ Rule was included among several EPA actions identified for review in accordance with Executive Order 13990 (Refs. 7 and 11). In the course of reviewing both the 2015 WPS and 2020 AEZ Rules in accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA found that some of the 2020 revisions to the AEZ requirements (specifically, the 2020 AEZ Rule's simplification of AEZ distance requirements and the limitation of the applicability of the AEZ requirements to the agricultural establishment's boundaries) are inconsistent with the objectives of protecting against unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment and limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides for all populations, including those who may experience disproportionate burden or risks such as workers, handlers, and those who live, work, or play on or near agricultural establishments. The Agency determined that the 2020 changes did not effectively balance the potential social and economic costs associated with limiting the AEZ requirements to areas under the owner's control and simplifying the distance criteria for ground-based spray applications (Ref. 1).

Furthermore, while preparing the administrative record for litigation, EPA discovered a factual error contained in the preamble of the 2020 AEZ Rule regarding the scope of AEZ content within EPA-approved trainings. Specifically, the preamble to the 2020 AEZ Rule states that “EPA-approved trainings since 2018 . . . have also incorporated EPA's 2016 guidance on how to apply pesticides near establishment borders and provide information on various measures applicators or handlers can take to prevent individuals from being contacted by spray or through drift,” and listed examples of such measures (Ref. 2). This assertion in the 2020 AEZ Rule was in error. While all EPA-approved trainings are in compliance with the WPS because they address the minimum requirements of the AEZ (40 CFR 170.501), after reevaluating the rule, EPA has determined that some of the trainings it has approved since 2018 only contain a partial set of the topics provided in guidance regarding best pesticide application practices near the borders of an establishment and on potential measures that can be used to prevent contact through drift (Refs. 4 through 6). Therefore, the reliance on this inaccurate assumption provides further reason to reinstate the 2015 WPS requirements regarding the applicability of AEZs off the establishment and within easements.

With this final rule, EPA is restoring protections originally established in the 2015 WPS that were amended by the 2020 AEZ Rule. By reestablishing the AEZ distances from the 2015 WPS and reinstating the applicability of the AEZ off-establishment and in easements, the rule will protect the health of all who may be within the vicinity of an ongoing pesticide application. Since agricultural workers, their families, and communities living near agricultural establishments may represent populations of environmental justice concern, the rulemaking also supports EPA's broader efforts to reduce the disproportionate burden of pesticide exposure on certain communities. Reducing such disproportionate burdens was a goal of both the 2015 WPS and Executive Order 13990 (Refs. 3 and 7).

EPA also seeks to improve the clarity of the AEZ regulation with this action. Hence, this rule retains the clarification from the 2020 AEZ Rule that specifies that suspended applications may resume once no one is in the AEZ. As discussed in more depth in Unit V.E., that clarification will supersede EPA's previous interpretive guidance (“2016/2018 Guidance”) on resuming applications in situations where people off the agricultural establishment are in the AEZ (Refs. 4 through 6). EPA anticipates that eliminating the 2016/2018 Guidance and relying instead on the plain language of the regulation will make the AEZ requirements clearer and support their implementation and enforcement.

To further clarify the AEZ requirements, EPA is finalizing new amendments to the criteria used to define droplet sizes and thus to determine AEZ distances. The 2015 WPS used a VMD value of 294 microns to distinguish between “fine” and “medium” or larger droplets, and thus to determine whether the AEZ should be 25 or 100 feet. The specific VMD value was derived from the original version of the ASABE standard, which is often referenced in nozzle manufacturers' selection guides. However, the ASABE standard has been revised several times, and ASABE no longer defines “medium” by a single numerical VMD value, but rather by a range. Moreover, applicators in the field often determine droplet size by selecting the appropriate nozzle according to its ASABE rating. EPA is therefore finalizing its proposal to define droplet sizes as “medium” or larger by incorporating the ASABE standard itself. The ASABE standard is familiar to and well understood by the regulated community.

Additionally, EPA aims with this rule to provide some regulatory relief for family-operated farms where it does not increase exposure risk to workers and bystanders. Therefore, this action finalizes the exemption for immediate family members under specific scenarios to remain within the AEZ, reducing management complexities for farming families.

Since the 2020 AEZ Rule has not been implemented due to the court-ordered stay discussed in Unit II.A.4., the 2015 WPS has continued to provide the operative regulatory language for the AEZ requirements during the current stay and any future extensions of the stay. Therefore, the Agency has determined that there will be no new impacts from the portions of this rule reinstating the 2015 WPS provisions that make the AEZ applicable beyond the boundaries of an agricultural establishment and within easements on the agricultural establishment.

Additionally, this rule reinstates the 2015 WPS criteria and factors for determining AEZ distances at 40 CFR 170.405(a) for ground spray applications, except for language around VMD as a determining factor (see Unit IV.C.). The Agency does not anticipate any new costs or impacts due to reinstating this regulatory language since the 2015 WPS remains in effect. Removing VMD from the AEZ criteria and instead using droplet size classifications ( i.e., “medium” as defined by the ASABE; see Unit VII.) is expected to provide a clear, practical, and easy approach for determining AEZ and enclosed space distances. EPA anticipates that this revision will improve compliance with other AEZ requirements and make it easier to enforce these provisions by eliminating any need to determine whether an application is over or under the specified VMD of 294 microns, as required by the 2015 WPS.

EPA is also maintaining certain revisions that were presented in the 2020 AEZ Rule, such as the provision that clarifies that pesticide applications that were suspended due to individuals entering an AEZ may be resumed after those individuals have left the AEZ, and the exemption that allows farm owners and members of their immediate family (as defined in 40 CFR 170.305) to shelter within closed structures within an AEZ during pesticide applications, provided that the owner has instructed the handlers that only the owner's immediate family are inside the closed shelter and that the application should proceed despite their presence (further described in Units IV.B.2. and V.F.). The revision that clarifies when suspended applications may resume better aligns with EPA's intent in the 2015 WPS. While this clarification does not result in any impacts compared to the intent of the 2015 WPS, it does nullify the 2016/2018 Guidance, the impacts of which are further described in Unit III.C.

Finalizing an immediate family exemption means that owners and their immediate family members do not have to leave their homes that are within an AEZ if the doors and windows remain closed. By retaining the immediate family exemption, some applications will be simpler and less burdensome than the 2015 WPS since fewer applications would need to be suspended on family farms. The impact is likely small, as the change would only apply to immediate family members of the farm owner who are inside a structure and within the AEZ. These changes are consistent with the intent of the AEZ in the 2015 WPS, particularly with regard to the immediate family exemptions that are applicable to other portions of the 2015 WPS. Maintaining these clarifications and flexibilities provide some regulatory relief that was sought after promulgation of the 2015 WPS without increasing exposure risks to workers or bystanders.

The 2020 AEZ Rule was initiated in response to feedback from members of the agricultural community, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), State pesticide regulatory agencies, several agricultural interest groups, and a limited number of public comments. These comments raised concerns about the complexity and enforceability of the AEZ requirements after the 2015 WPS was promulgated. For the 2020 AEZ Rule, EPA qualitatively described the benefit of the rule as a reduction in the complexity of applying a pesticide (Ref. 12). The benefits described were not monetary; revising the requirements would have reduced the complexity of arranging and conducting pesticide applications and enforcing the provisions. The benefits of the 2020 AEZ Rule would have resulted in some reduced management complexity both on and off establishment, because there would have been fewer situations where the AEZ would have applied had the rule gone into effect ( i.e., the AEZ would not have been applicable off the establishment or for individuals within an easement on the establishment). EPA did not discuss any costs, or increased risk from pesticide exposure, in the 2020 AEZ Rule's supporting documents due its reliance on the “Do Not Contact” requirement that establishes the responsibility of the applicator to prevent pesticides from contacting people either directly or through drift. This is in part because the “Do Not Contact” provision (further described in Unit II.A.2.) is applicable in all situations, without limitations on distance or the individual's location respective to the application.

Compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule, the changes in this rulemaking will result in the AEZ encompassing a greater area and applying in more situations. Had the 2020 AEZ Rule been implemented, the 2020 AEZ Rule would have applied only in situations where people can be directed by the owner of the establishment, while this rulemaking would apply in all situations, regardless of whether people may not be under the direction of the owner, such as individuals off the establishment or within easements. To effectively implement the changes in this rule compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule, owners and handlers may need to communicate more frequently with those nearby the establishment or within easements to ensure that nobody is within the AEZ and may require an application to be suspended or rescheduled. However, with the 2020 AEZ Rule as a baseline, the impact of these changes on agricultural establishments is likely to be small. Conversely, having the AEZ be applicable in all directions, regardless of whether an individual is on or off the establishment, may simplify applications in the sense that the handler does not need to apply different requirements to different situations.

In addition, the 2020 AEZ Rule sought to establish a simplified 25-foot AEZ for all ground-based spray applications above 12 inches, regardless of the droplet size. This rule reinstates the 2015 WPS criteria and factors for determining AEZ distances at 40 CFR 170.405(a) for ground spray applications, except for language around VMD as a determining factor (as further explained in Units IV.C. and V.C.). If the 2020 AEZ Rule had gone into effect, this action may have resulted in more complex application strategies because the different AEZ distances may have come into play more often and owners and handlers would have had to consider more carefully the various application and nozzle characteristics. However, restoring the droplet size criteria back to the 2015 WPS language ( i.e., medium droplets as a threshold) results in increased protection from applications using fine sprays that are more susceptible to spray drift compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule. Additionally, EPA's decision to not reinstate VMD as a criterion and instead rely on the ASABE standard's definition of “medium” droplet size better reflects how applicators in the field determine droplet size (by selecting the appropriate nozzle according to its ASABE rating). The change should make it easier for applicators to understand the original requirements regarding how to achieve specific droplet classifications and how to implement the appropriate AEZ based on that information. As a result, the impact of these changes in droplet size criteria is expected to be small compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule.

As previously noted, EPA is retaining certain changes made by the 2020 AEZ Rule, such as the provision that clarifies that pesticide applications that were suspended due to individuals entering an AEZ may be resumed after those individuals have left the AEZ, and the exemption that allows farm owners and members of their immediate family (as defined in 40 CFR 170.305) to shelter within closed structures within an AEZ during pesticide applications, provided that the owner has instructed the handlers that only the owner's immediate family are inside the closed shelter and that the application should proceed despite their presence (further described in Units IV.B.2. and V.F.). These changes are consistent with the intent of the AEZ in the 2015 WPS, particularly with regard to the immediate family exemptions that are applicable to other portions of the 2015 WPS. Retaining these clarifications and flexibilities in this rule provides some regulatory relief that was sought in the 2020 AEZ Rule without increasing exposure risks to workers or bystanders.

Compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule, the requirements of this rule regarding individuals off the establishment and within easements are more protective of workers and bystanders when implemented rather than relying on the “Do Not Contact” requirement as the only protective measure when individuals are outside of the owner's control, as under the 2020 AEZ Rule.

Public comments submitted to the docket during the 2015 WPS rulemaking included examples of incidents where workers were exposed to pesticide applications from neighboring establishments as well as from the establishment where they were working. EPA continues to receive reports of incidents like those provided in past comments, despite the “Do Not Contact” requirement and the expectation that applicators and handlers must not spray pesticides in a manner that may result in contact with individuals. As noted in the 2015 WPS, out of 17 incidents identified in the comments, only one could have been prevented if the AEZ was limited to the boundaries of the agricultural establishment, as would have been established had the 2020 AEZ Rule gone into effect. EPA's analysis at the time indicated that the AEZ, if complied with, could have prevented at least four of the incidents reported in the 2015 WPS comments, and possibly as many as 12, depending on the actual distances between the workers and application equipment (Ref. 3). While the Agency is unable to quantify the number of incidents that could be reduced by the AEZ, the AEZ requirements serve as an important supplement to the “Do Not Contact” requirements and are expected to reduce the total number of exposures if implemented correctly and consistently.

While this final rule does not impose additional requirements beyond what the 2015 WPS requires, stakeholders also requested that EPA codify 2016/2018 Guidance stating that applicators could resume applications when people off the establishment were in the AEZ, provided they first suspended the application and then evaluated the situation to ensure that no contact would occur (Refs. 4 through 6). While EPA determined not to codify the 2016/2018 Guidance (for reasons explained in Unit V.E.), stakeholders highlighted a potential burden to handlers: pesticide applications may be more difficult in areas where vehicles can pass through the AEZ. EPA considered but chose not to adopt an exception for some vehicles passing through an AEZ. An exception for some vehicles could create additional risks to vehicle occupants, as described in Units V.B. and V.E. There is no additional burden relative to the 2015 WPS in choosing not to adopt the exception, because the 2015 WPS contained no exception to the requirement to suspend the application when someone is in the AEZ (except for properly trained and equipped handlers involved in the application). The 2016/2018 Guidance simply clarified when suspended applications could resume. Therefore, EPA concluded that the benefits of including an exception for some vehicles were outweighed by potential risks to vehicle occupants passing through the AEZ. Although the exception would reduce the complexity of an application when some vehicles pass through an AEZ, the benefits are unlikely to be substantial in most cases.

Under this final rule, as in the 2015 WPS, suspending an application is required when a vehicle enters the AEZ. A vehicle could only enter the AEZ when the field is adjacent to a road, a portion of the road is within the AEZ (after considering any ditches or turnrows between the field and the road), and a vehicle is passing through the AEZ during an application at the edge of the field nearest the road. In most cases, the burden could be managed by the applicator suspending the application as the vehicle approaches the AEZ and resuming the application once the vehicle has left the AEZ, which could increase the time to complete the task as an applicator would suspend and resume application. In many rural areas where heavy traffic is unlikely, cases of vehicles passing through the AEZ during an application may be infrequent. In some cases, such as when a heavily trafficked road is adjacent to an agricultural establishment, it may be difficult for the applicator to suspend and resume applications between passing vehicles. In these cases, applicators may be able to change the timing of application to a time when there is less traffic or alter the application in such a way as to have a smaller AEZ ( i.e., choosing a product that allows larger droplet size, which might require changing the pesticide applied). If none of these approaches are feasible, the owner or handler could be unable to treat the area of the agricultural establishment bordering the road. Owners could use another, potentially less cost-effective pest control method in this area, cease pest control in this area, or stop production in the area entirely. The latter options could imply a substantial impact on the affected area of the field where a vehicle could pass through an AEZ. The relative impact will be larger on smaller or narrow fields that border a busy road, as a larger portion of the field would be affected. EPA is unable to quantify how many growers would be substantially affected considering that growers typically manage multiple fields, but substantial impacts to a farm as a whole are likely to be rare.

On March 13, 2023, EPA published a proposed rule (2023 Proposed Rule) that reconsidered the 2020 AEZ Rule requirements in response to Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 1). The Agency proposed to rescind three amendments from the 2020 AEZ Rule and reinstate the corresponding requirements from the 2015 WPS (see Unit IV.A.). The Agency also proposed three amendments to improve the clarity of the AEZ provisions and provide some regulatory relief to family-operated farms. Two of these amendments were provisions from the 2020 AEZ Rule that the Agency proposed to retain, as they do not increase risk for workers and bystanders (see Unit IV.B.). The third was a new provision to clarify the meaning of the “medium” droplet size (see Unit IV.C.). The proposed amendments are outlined in this unit.

The Agency proposed to rescind the following amendments from the 2020 AEZ Rule and reinstate the corresponding 2015 WPS Rule requirements.

EPA proposed to revise the AEZ provision at 40 CFR 170.505(b) requiring that pesticide handlers “suspend the application” if a worker or other person (other than a trained and equipped handler) is in the AEZ. The 2020 AEZ Rule added a clause limiting the applicability of the suspension requirement to the agricultural employer's property, such that the AEZ would no longer cover bystanders on adjacent establishments. As a result, had the 2020 AEZ Rule gone into effect, it would have relied solely upon the “Do Not Contact” requirement in the WPS as the method of protecting people on adjacent properties. EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS regulatory text requiring pesticide handlers to suspend applications if any worker or other person, other than appropriately trained and equipped handlers involved in the application, enters an AEZ, regardless of whether those people are on or off the establishment. EPA also proposed to make conforming revisions to the handler training requirements at 40 CFR 170.501(c)(3)(xi), and the exemptions at 40 CFR 170.601(a)(1)(vi) to reflect the applicability of the AEZ both on and off the establishment.

EPA proposed to remove language from 40 CFR 170.405(a)(2)(ii) and 170.505(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) that made the AEZ requirements inapplicable in easements. The 2020 AEZ Rule would have created an exception for agricultural employers and handlers, wherein they would not have been required to suspend pesticide applications if an individual not employed by the establishment was within an AEZ but in an area subject to an easement, where the agricultural employer may not be able to restrict entry. EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS regulatory text that requires pesticide handlers to suspend applications if any worker or other person, other than appropriately trained and equipped handlers involved in the application, enters an AEZ, regardless of whether they are in an area subject to an easement.

EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS criteria and factors for determining AEZ distances at 40 CFR 170.405(a) for ground spray applications, except for language around a VMD as a determining factor (see Unit IV.C.). The 2020 AEZ Rule would have eliminated the criteria for determining the AEZ distances based on droplet size, establishing a single 25-foot AEZ for all ground-based spray applications made from a height greater than 12 inches from the soil surface or planting medium, irrespective of droplet size. EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS regulatory text, which specifies an AEZ distance of 100 feet for sprays using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller than medium, and a 25-foot AEZ for ground applications sprayed from a height greater than 12 inches from the soil surface or planting medium using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or larger.

EPA proposed to retain two provisions from the 2020 AEZ Rule that did not increase exposure risk to workers and bystanders. These provisions sought to improve the clarity of the AEZ requirements and to provide some regulatory relief for family-operated farms.

In the 2020 AEZ Rule, EPA revised 40 CFR 170.505(b) to clarify that applications that had been suspended because individuals were in the AEZ could be resumed after those individuals had left the AEZ. EPA proposed to retain this revision.

EPA proposed to retain the immediate family exemption at 40 CFR 170.601. In the 2020 AEZ Rule, EPA added an exemption that allows farm owners and members of their immediate family (as defined in 40 CFR 170.305) to shelter within closed structures within an AEZ during pesticide applications, provided that the owner has instructed the handlers that only the owner's immediate family are inside the closed shelter and that the application should proceed despite their presence. The exemption also permits handlers to proceed with an application when owners or their immediate family members remain inside closed buildings, housing, and structures, provided that the owner has expressly instructed the handler that only the owner and/or their immediate family members remain inside the closed building and that the application can proceed despite the owner and their immediate family members' presence inside the closed building. It does not permit non-family members to remain within the closed structure.

In addition to rescinding and retaining the provisions from the 2020 AEZ Rule discussed in Units IV.A. and IV.B., EPA proposed to incorporate the droplet size categories of all versions of the ASAE Standard 572 (S572) (Refs. 13 through 16) by reference in 40 CFR 170.405, to give meaning to the “medium” droplet size criterion (for more information on the incorporation by reference, see Unit VII.). The 2015 WPS used a VMD value of 294 microns to distinguish between fine spray applications and spray applications using medium or larger droplet sizes; this VMD value was the determining criterion for AEZ distances. The VMD criterion reflected an older version of S572, which used the value of 294 microns to define “medium” (Ref. 13). However, S572 has been revised several times (see Unit VII.; Refs. 14 through 16). While the categorization of “medium” droplet sizes has remained largely constant, the specific VMD values that were the basis for the criteria in the 2015 WPS requirements have changed. Moreover, applicators in the field often determine droplet size by selecting the appropriate nozzle according to its S572 rating. EPA therefore proposed to replace VMD with an incorporation by reference to S572 for droplet size, which defines droplet size categories for the classification of spray nozzles, relative to specified reference fan nozzles. The S572 classifications and categories are generally well understood by the regulated community and are referenced in several places, including on pesticide product labels as updated through EPA's Registration Review process, as well as in nozzle manufacturers' selection guides to assist applicators in determining which nozzles and spray characteristics will produce various droplet sizes that are consistent with the S572 classifications.

To maintain consistency in the requirements between outdoor production applications and applications associated with enclosed space production, EPA also proposed to remove VMD as a criterion for entry restriction distances during enclosed space production pesticide applications, instead using the same droplet size standards as those used for outdoor production.

The public comment period for the 2023 Proposed Rule closed on May 13, 2023. EPA received feedback from 25 commenters (28 submissions total) specific to the 2023 Proposed Rule. USDA submitted additional comments during the public comment period. Some of the 25 comments discussed the AEZ as a general principle while others focused on specific requirements.

Several agricultural business stakeholders, as well as State lead agencies represented by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), expressed general opposition to the AEZ requirements, characterizing them as complex, burdensome for growers and handlers, and duplicative of existing protections ( e.g., label requirements and “Do Not Contact”). They stated that the need for the AEZ is not supported by incident data.

Several farmworker advocacy organizations, along with numerous State Attorneys General and one State lead agency commented that the AEZ is necessary to protect human health, including that of farmworkers, bystanders, and surrounding communities. They characterized the AEZ as consistent with EPA's responsibilities under FIFRA, as well as EPA policies and principles of environmental justice and children's health. To support their statements, commenters cited studies, incident data, and anecdotal evidence of pesticide exposures to workers and bystanders beyond that which EPA considered for the 2015 WPS. One commenter presented a series of photographs and maps demonstrating the proximity of agricultural fields to schools and playgrounds. Commenters also noted that pesticide exposure incidents are underreported.

EPA disagrees with commenters who suggested that the AEZ requirements are duplicative or unjustified by incident data. The Agency considers the AEZ necessary to address incidents of contact from agricultural pesticide applications. As EPA determined during its analysis for the 2015 WPS, “Do Not Contact,” on its own, has been insufficient to protect workers and bystanders; handlers require a guideline (Ref. 3). Although EPA published amendments to the AEZ requirements in 2020, the Agency maintained that some sort of guideline is necessary. Furthermore, commenters on this action and the proposal that was finalized as the 2020 AEZ Rule (2019 Proposed Rule) identified several incidents that might have been prevented by correct implementation of the AEZ requirements. EPA's review of data from the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks-Pesticides (SENSOR-pesticides), the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), EPA's Incident Data System, and State surveillance systems identified others, including incidents in the years after the AEZ requirements went into effect and incidents involving sensitive populations (Refs. 17 through 20). For example, in June 2023, after the public comment period for the 2023 Proposed Rule closed, 12 workers in Oregon appear to have been exposed to an application less than 25 feet from a tractor applying pesticides in a neighboring field (Ref. 19). Of the 12 workers, 10 had adverse health effects and one was hospitalized. Similarly, in California in 2016, 2018, and 2019, State surveillance data captured incidents of agricultural pesticides contacting passing school buses (Ref. 18). While much incident data lacks specific details about the distance to application equipment, it supports the need for handlers to be aware of their surroundings and suspend applications when workers and bystanders are nearby; in other words, it supports the general approach of the AEZ requirements. Moreover, EPA agrees with commenters that exposure incidents are underreported. As described in the economic analysis for the 2015 WPS, health care providers may not always report incidents of pesticide exposure because there is no universal reporting requirement or central reporting point (Ref. 21). In addition to these barriers for health care providers, EPA acknowledges that the literacy, language, legal, economic, and immigration status of agricultural workers creates challenges for those who wish to access the health care that would be a primary route for reporting pesticide incidents. Due to underreporting and limitations in the information collected, there may have been incidents supporting the need for an AEZ that pesticide surveillance systems did not capture. While the Agency is unable to quantify the number of incidents that may have been prevented by correct implementation of the AEZ requirements, the information from incidents that EPA has reviewed and the Agency's understanding of factors contributing to underreporting generally support the necessity of an AEZ as an additional administrative control measure for handlers in support of protecting public health.

EPA agrees with commenters that the AEZ is consistent with its obligations under FIFRA, Agency policy, and executive orders on environmental justice and children's health (Refs. 7, 22 and 23). EPA's analysis of the 2015 WPS showed that the regulation would reduce risks that fall disproportionately on populations of environmental justice concern, such as workers, handlers, and their families and nearby communities. EPA reexamined the 2020 AEZ Rule in accordance with Executive Order 13990, which identifies environmental justice as an Administration priority, and found that the 2020 AEZ Rule reduced key protections established by the 2015 WPS (Ref. 7). Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule to reinstate those provisions and restore protections. Similarly, although this action is not expected to have a disproportionate impact on children, EPA is persuaded by the specific examples that commenters provided, as well as its own findings from incident data, that the AEZ could reduce the potential for children to be exposed to pesticides.

EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS regulatory text requiring pesticide handlers to suspend applications if any worker or other person, other than appropriately trained and equipped handlers involved in the application, enters an AEZ, regardless of whether they are on or off the establishment or in an area subject to an easement.

EPA has finalized as proposed the area where the AEZ requirements are applicable, and removed the exception for easements that would have been established under the 2020 AEZ Rule.

Several Attorneys General, farmworker advocacy organizations, a State lead agency, and two members of the public commented in support of the proposal to reinstate the applicability of the AEZ requirements off-establishment and in easements. These commenters stated that the AEZ must extend off-establishment to protect the health of farmworkers, farmworker families, and surrounding communities, since pesticide drift does not automatically stop at the establishment boundaries. Similarly, one organization and several Attorneys General noted that the proposal to reinstate the applicability of AEZ requirements in easements protects essential utility and postal workers, among others.

Commenters in support of reinstating this requirement cited studies, incident data, and anecdotes from both before and after the 2015 WPS rulemaking to demonstrate that people near agricultural establishments, not just on them, are at risk from pesticide exposure. Children and populations of environmental justice concern may live or spend time near agricultural fields (for example, in migrant farmworker housing or childcare centers). Therefore, commenters also suggested that requiring AEZ protections to extend off the establishment and into easements is consistent with executive orders, EPA policies, and general principles of children's health and environmental justice.

One commenter noted that the “Do Not Contact” requirement does not stop at the establishment boundaries. They suggested that the applicability of the AEZ requirements off-establishment supports “Do Not Contact” and would improve compliance.

NASDA and several agricultural business stakeholders opposed requiring AEZs to be applicable in all areas near an ongoing application, including off the establishment and in easements. Many of these commenters noted that establishment owners, agricultural employers, and handlers cannot control the movement of people off-establishment or in easements, and that pesticide applications are time-sensitive. They suggested that the requirement to suspend for individuals within an AEZ off the establishment could delay applications until the optimal application time had passed, resulting in less effective applications and lost yield. Similarly, one commenter suggested that off-establishment AEZ requirements could restrict access to farm roads and facilities for long periods, disrupting local economies. These commenters indicated that the requirements would particularly affect fields with easements, fields bordering roads and houses, and aerial applications.

Some commenters suggested that off-establishment AEZ requirements could result not only in delayed applications but also in permanent setbacks. USDA, agricultural business stakeholders, and a member of the public suggested that owners might choose to leave parts of their land unsprayed rather than repeatedly suspend the application. They identified fields bordering busy roads, fields bordering housing, and areas with limited visibility (such as orchards) as situations where setbacks might be more likely. Setbacks would lead to lost yield. Commenters stated that the impact of leaving land unused would be greatest for smaller farms.

Several agricultural business stakeholders raised legal concerns with the applicability of the AEZ off-establishment. Two commenters suggested that owners, employers, and handlers who attempted to restrict entry to or activities on areas not on their property but within the AEZ could face legal liability. Another commenter expressed the same concern over easements, noting that easements grant a right of access to certain parties.

While not opposing the applicability of the AEZ off-establishment or in easements, one State lead agency noted that handlers may struggle to make determinations about whether people are in the AEZ when the AEZ extends past the property line. They encouraged EPA to hold the agricultural employer or a licensed applicator responsible for implementation of this provision.

Several commenters discussed how AEZ requirements that apply off-establishment will affect communication among handlers and others in agricultural areas. USDA expressed concern that handlers would have to engage in burdensome communication with people off-establishment, while two advocacy organizations suggested that extending AEZ requirements off-establishment would encourage positive, proactive communication among neighbors about upcoming applications.

EPA agrees with commenters who assert it is necessary for the AEZ requirements to apply off-establishment and in easements to protect human health, including that of communities of environmental justice concern (such as workers, handlers, and their families) and sensitive populations, such as children. As noted in the preamble to the 2015 WPS, out of 17 incidents of pesticide exposure identified in the comments, only one could have been prevented if the AEZ were limited to the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. EPA's analysis indicated that the AEZ could have prevented at least four of the incidents reported in the comments on the 2015 WPS, and possibly as many as 12 (Ref. 3).

EPA also agrees with commenters who state that for the AEZ requirements to effectively supplement the “Do Not Contact” provision, the AEZ must extend beyond the boundary of the establishment as the “Do Not Contact” provision does. The AEZ regulation provides an additional requirement for handlers such that their applications do not contact people either directly or through drift. That requirement should be equally useful to handlers complying with “Do Not Contact” whether the AEZ is on- or off-establishment. Incident data from NPIC, SENSOR-pesticides, State surveillance, and EPA's incident data system suggests generally that the need for this requirement is ongoing (Refs. 17 through 20). For example, pesticide surveillance systems continue to capture exposure incidents involving people on off-establishment roads, such as the incidents involving contact to school buses referenced in Unit V.A.2. EPA found examples of incidents involving contact to people on roads even after the AEZ went into effect. For instance, in 2018, Washington State surveillance captured an incident in which a man driving to work was contacted by an airblast application 30 to 40 feet away (Ref. 20). This incident and the school bus incidents referenced above are meant to serve only as examples, not to establish trends; but they provide additional support for EPA's finding in the 2015 WPS that the AEZ is necessary to supplement “Do Not Contact” beyond the boundary of the establishment.

EPA disagrees with commenters who suggested that AEZ requirements applicable beyond the boundary of the establishment and in easements are equivalent to permanent setbacks in all or even most cases. There are several means by which agricultural employers and handlers can limit the need to suspend their applications due to the movement of people off-establishment and in easements. They may choose to adjust the type of pesticide application such that the AEZ is only 25 feet, selecting a product that allows for medium or coarser droplets. Alternatively, employers and handlers may choose to provide advanced notification of planned applications to ensure no one is in the AEZ or choose to complete the application at a time when there are fewer people present in the area (although the requirement to suspend an application if people are in the AEZ remains). Moreover, as discussed in further detail in Unit III.C., these alternatives are likely only necessary in select, infrequent circumstances.

In the same way, EPA is not persuaded that the applicability of the AEZ requirements off-establishment and in easements causes unreasonable delays to applications, restricts access to farm facilities for long periods of time, or places an undue burden of communication on owners, employers, and handlers. The AEZ moves with the application equipment and exists only while the application is ongoing. As discussed in Unit III.B., EPA anticipates that the economic impacts of the requirements off-establishment and in easements are likely small in most cases, even as compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule. Furthermore, the “Do Not Contact” requirement has always been applicable beyond the boundary of the establishment, so the AEZ requirement adds minimal (if any) burden to what was already required in many situations before 2015. Owners, employers, and handlers can also reduce any potential disruption to the application by adjusting application type or timing or by providing advance notification, as discussed in the previous paragraph.

Commenters' concerns that the AEZ puts owners, employers, and handlers in legal jeopardy by forcing them to restrict access to or activities on others' property appear to reflect a misunderstanding of the AEZ requirements. The AEZ does not require that owners, employers, or handlers restrict access to others' property. The “keep out” requirement at 170.405(a)(2) (where the agricultural employer is prohibited from allowing or directing any worker or other person to enter or remain in the AEZ,) is only applicable on the agricultural establishment and within the boundaries of the AEZ or treated area. Similarly, the AEZ does not force owners, employers, or handlers to control the activities of people off-establishment. If someone is in the AEZ off-establishment (for example, if a neighbor pulls into their home's driveway and into the AEZ), the requirement is for the handler to suspend the application until the person leaves the AEZ. Therefore, EPA is not placing an affirmative duty on agricultural establishment owners or handlers to restrict the movement of people outside the boundaries of the agricultural establishment or creating potential legal liability for owners or handlers.

Similarly, EPA is not persuaded by comments stating that the AEZ requirements put agricultural employers in legal jeopardy by forcing them to restrict access to easements on the agricultural establishment. If an AEZ overlaps with part of an easement on the agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer is required to ensure that no one enters that AEZ; however, they are not required to keep people out of the easement entirely. As the AEZ exists only immediately around the application equipment and during the application, any limitations to easement access would be small in scope and temporary. Furthermore, if someone in an easement were within the AEZ, the handler would only have to suspend the application to comply with the AEZ requirements. Therefore, EPA is not placing an affirmative duty on handlers or owners to control the actions of persons in easements and in turn, is not creating potential legal liability for owners or handlers in extending the AEZ into easements.

Overall, EPA maintains that even if the AEZ provisions cause minor disruption to agricultural operations or necessitate some additional communication, the benefits of the AEZ extending to workers and bystanders off-establishment outweigh the burden on the regulated community. Continued reports of incidents since the 2015 WPS went into effect highlight the need for compliance with the AEZ requirements to protect human health. As discussed in Unit III.B., EPA anticipates that the applicability of the AEZ requirements off-establishment and in easements will likely have only a small impact in most cases as compared to the 2020 AEZ Rule. Furthermore, EPA reiterates that the requirements to suspend the application for individuals off-establishment and in easements have been in place since the 2015 WPS and thus do not represent new costs for the regulated community.

With respect to the comment stating that handlers may struggle to determine whether people are in the AEZ when it extends off-establishment, the Agency reiterates that handlers already bear responsibility under the WPS for ensuring that pesticides do not contact people beyond the boundaries of the establishment. The AEZ indicates how to avoid contact, setting minimum required distances for suspending the application. However, it should also be noted that there is no restriction in the rule limiting responsibility to the handler. The decision to hold liable the owner of the establishment or a certified applicator is made on a case-by-case basis.

EPA plans to issue guidance to support establishment owners, agricultural employers, and handlers in complying with AEZ requirements related to applications near the boundaries of the establishment and easements. In this compliance assistance guidance, EPA will consider including suggestions on communication, as well as strategies that limit the need for such communication ( e.g., changing the path or timing of the application).

EPA proposed to reinstate the 2015 WPS regulatory text, which specifies a distance of 100 feet for sprays using a spray quality of smaller than medium, and a 25-foot AEZ for ground applications sprayed from a height greater than 12 inches from the soil surface or planting medium using a spray quality of medium or larger.

EPA also proposed to replace the VMD criteria with the ASABE droplet size classification standards, for both indoor and outdoor production (Refs. 13 through 16).

EPA has finalized as proposed the AEZ distances and droplet size criteria. EPA has finalized its proposal to replace VMD criteria with the ASABE droplet size classification standard, as proposed, for both indoor and outdoor production.

Several agricultural business stakeholders opposed the AEZ distances in the 2023 Proposed Rule, as well as the use of droplet size as the criterion to determine the size of the AEZ. These commenters advocated for the use of product-specific distances, as EPA has established for pesticides that require buffer zones; or for the use of factors besides droplet size to control drift, such as spray pressure, wind direction, and wind speed.

Some farmworker advocacy organizations, though generally supportive of the 2023 Proposed Rule, questioned whether the size of the AEZ is sufficiently protective of human health. These stakeholders cited studies and State incident data that found drift from airblast applications at distances greater than 100 feet, as well as anecdotal reports of continued exposures.

Other farmworker advocacy organizations, as well as several Attorneys General, commented in support of the AEZ distance requirements in the 2023 Proposed Rule, stating that they are necessary to protect human health. One commenter cited anecdotes, enforcement cases, and incident data of farmworkers and community members within 100 feet of an ongoing application who were contacted by pesticides. Several commenters referenced studies demonstrating that smaller droplets drift farther than larger ones, reasoning that finer-droplet sprays require larger AEZs.

Two farmworker advocacy organizations also commented in support of using the ASABE standards for droplet size to determine the size of the AEZ. They remarked that the ASABE standards are well understood by the regulated community because they are used to rate spray nozzles, which could reduce the complexity of implementing the rule and improve compliance. A farm bureau also expressed support for use of the ASABE standards, though opposing the distance requirements. Another farmworker advocacy organization noted that the ASABE standards are not well understood by farmworkers and asked that this information be provided to workers in a language they understand.

While EPA appreciates the data and studies cited by commenters, the Agency has determined that re-establishing the AEZ distances from the 2015 WPS is the best approach.

Studies cited in response to this action and in response to the 2020 AEZ Rule (Refs. 24 through 28), as well as information contained in the administrative record for the 2015 WPS rule, show that pesticide applications using sprays with droplets smaller than medium are prone to drift greater than 25 feet. Therefore, EPA has determined that a 100-foot AEZ for sprays with droplets smaller than medium is needed to protect workers or bystanders near these fine-spray applications.

With respect to comments urging an AEZ distance of greater than 100 feet for certain application types, EPA notes, firstly, that the WPS does not function in isolation. The AEZ is intended to serve as a baseline protection measure when product labels do not provide greater protections. When labels are more protective, they take precedence. For example, rather than the AEZ, which exists only during the application, soil fumigants may have label-mandated buffer zones that begin during the application and remain after the application has concluded. These buffers may be up to half a mile wide. In this way, EPA already supplements the AEZ distances with product label-specific instructions in cases where there is a particular, increased risk.

Second, in this rulemaking, EPA reconsidered AEZ distances only with respect to application type. To reconsider the distances themselves would require a new evaluation of the human health and economic impacts of the AEZ requirements, as well as their enforceability. EPA finds the current human health and economic impacts analyses detailed in this final rule to be sufficient for establishing AEZ distances. Finally, the 100-foot distance is familiar to stakeholders, having been the operative AEZ distance for certain applications since 2015. This distance is also consistent with previous protective distances for nursery production under the 1992 WPS (Ref. 8). Familiarity and consistency aid compliance.

Though EPA appreciates that some commenters have considered the range of techniques available to reduce drift, the Agency is similarly not persuaded by commenters' request for further product- or application-specific protections in lieu of the AEZ. As discussed above, the WPS and labeling requirements work in tandem: the WPS is a more general, uniform set of standards for pesticide safety while the labeling requirements provide more tailored protections based on the specifics of each chemical and application method. A uniform AEZ is consistent with that approach. Moreover, while EPA is aware of the many methods and technologies to reduce drift, it agrees with one State lead agency's comment that not all pesticide handlers are highly trained and equipped certified applicators. There is need for a supplement to “Do Not Contact” that serves all handlers, regardless of training or experience.

EPA agrees with commenters who asserted the ASABE standards are well understood by regulated community. EPA believes that the incorporation of the ASABE standard into the rule will allow handlers to quickly and easily determine AEZ size, reducing the complexity of implementation, since the standard is often referenced in nozzle manufacturers' selection guides. EPA also anticipates that this revision will improve compliance with other AEZ requirements and make it easier to enforce these provisions by eliminating any need to determine the VMD.

In developing its compliance assistance guidance, EPA will consider providing clarity around the ASABE droplet size standard as needed.

In the 2020 AEZ Rule, EPA added text clarifying that applications that had been suspended because individuals were in the AEZ could be resumed after those individuals had left the AEZ. EPA proposed to retain the clarification under this action.

EPA has finalized as proposed the clarification on resuming applications.

NASDA, agricultural business stakeholders, and several farmworker advocacy stakeholders supported the proposal to clarify when suspended applications could resume. Commenters agreed that the language provides necessary clarity. A farmworker advocacy organization suggested that by providing certainty to handlers, the clarification would improve compliance with “Do Not Contact.” NASDA qualified its support, indicating that the clarification should only apply on-establishment.

While not opposing this provision, one State lead agency noted that pesticide handlers may not be certified applicators or even native English speakers. As such, handlers may not have language skills to ask bystanders to leave the AEZ so that the application can resume or the training to adjust the application path. The State agency recommended that the rule be further clarified so that an employer or certified applicator is held responsible for resuming applications.

Although EPA always intended for suspended applications to resume once persons have left the AEZ, EPA agrees with commenters that the regulation is clearer when this is made explicit. EPA hopes that the provision also improves compliance. EPA disagrees that the clarification should only apply to applications within the agricultural establishment's boundaries, for the reasons outlined in Unit V.B.

While EPA recognizes the comment stating that handlers are not always certified applicators or native English speakers, the Agency believes that all handlers should have the skills necessary to suspend the application when people enter the AEZ and resume it after they leave. Handlers already bear responsibility under the WPS for ensuring that pesticides do not contact people; the AEZ complements implementation of the “Do Not Contact” provision by providing a minimum distance at which they must suspend the application.

It should be noted that there is no restriction in the rule limiting responsibility to the handler. The decision to hold liable the owner of the establishment or a certified applicator are made on a case-by-case basis. In its compliance assistance guidance, EPA will consider including best practices to support agricultural employers and various handlers with the new clarification on resuming applications.

In Units II.B.3. and II.C.3. of the 2023 Proposed Rule, EPA requested input on the adequacy of procedures laid out in previous interpretive guidance documents (two from 2016 and one from 2018) for resuming applications in situations where the AEZ extends off-establishment or into easements (Refs. 4 through 6). These procedures allow pesticide handlers to resume applications when people off-establishment or in easements are in the AEZ, provided handlers first suspend the application and then evaluate conditions to ensure there will be no contact. The 2016/2018 Guidance provides a number of best application practices handlers could use to evaluate conditions, ranging anywhere from asking people to move from the AEZ until the application equipment has moved on to assessing wind direction and other weather conditions to determine that the application will not blow toward bystanders. Because the 2023 Proposed Rule specifies that applications (whether on- or off-establishment) can only resume once people have left the AEZ, it nullifies the 2016/2018 Guidance.

EPA has finalized as proposed the clarification regarding when suspended applications may resume. Procedures from EPA's 2016/2018 Guidance are nullified by this action.

USDA and agricultural business stakeholders commented in support of the procedures from the 2016/2018 Guidance, maintaining that they accommodate economic and logistical needs without posing additional risk to workers and bystanders. Commenters suggested that, if applicators were not able to resume applications as indicated in the 2016/2018 Guidance, applications along busy roads and near houses or farm facilities would be frequently disrupted. Additionally, USDA described difficulties for ground-based applicators in orchards or vineyards even with the flexibilities of the 2016/2018 Guidance. If visibility is poor, these handlers “might not even see people passing [off-establishment] who are within the AEZ and would only have the option to make applications under conditions that ensure no pesticide contact.”

USDA suggested that, in the absence of the 2016/2018 Guidance, establishment owners would be forced to set back from their property lines, foregoing part of their yield. They laid out a hypothetical estimating the potential impact of 50-foot setbacks on an agricultural operation. USDA also noted that guidance does not have the force of regulation and can be inconsistently enforced, or else revoked. To prevent potential losses and avoid inconsistencies, USDA suggested codifying language similar to the 2016/2018 Guidance in this rule that permits handlers to resume applications after they have evaluated and determined that people outside of the establishment's boundaries will not be contacted by the pesticide application, either directly or through drift.

A farmworker advocacy organization commented in opposition to the procedures from the 2016/2018 Guidance, stating that they posed an unreasonable risk to bystanders. This commenter suggested that the 2016/2018 Guidance contradicts the common-sense interpretation of the requirement that applications must be suspended when “any worker or other person . . . is in” the AEZ. They also noted that the 2016/2018 Guidance procedures rely heavily on the discretion of the handler; under the 2016/2018 Guidance, the handler determines case by case whether contact will occur, how to prevent contact, and when it was safe to resume the application. In contrast, if the handler could not resume the application until people have left the AEZ, regardless of whether they were on- or off-establishment, the only determination they had to make was whether people were within 25 or 100 feet. Referencing EPA's analysis from the 2015 WPS and decision to supplement “Do Not Contact” with an AEZ, the commenter maintained that there is a need to simplify handlers' decision-making, rather than rely exclusively on their judgment; and that allowing handlers broad discretion increases the risk of bystander exposure.

Similarly, the State lead agency noted that pesticide handlers are not always highly trained certified applicators. As a result, some handlers may not have the skills to evaluate whether environmental conditions allow them to safely resume applications, or the knowledge to choose an appropriate drift-reduction technology. The commenter proposed that the employer or a certified applicator be held responsible for determining when to resume applications.

Comments revealed a number of limitations to the 2016/2018 Guidance that EPA had not previously considered. First, rather than provide the intended clarity, the 2016/2018 Guidance introduced ambiguity into the AEZ and opened the door to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the AEZ requirements. Codifying the procedures would continue this ambiguity. The “evaluation” step is open-ended, with any number of methodologies that could be used to determine whether an application can resume. The lack of specificity could again lead to complexity and inconsistencies in implementation and enforcement across states.

Second, as one commenter noted, the procedures outlined in the 2016/2018 Guidance relied extensively on handlers' discretion and involve a more complex assessment beyond what the current AEZ provisions require. While judgments may be made with the benefit of extensive training and advanced technology, EPA agrees with the State lead agency's comment, which noted that not all handlers are certified applicators. The open-ended “evaluation” step is inconsistent with the AEZ's purpose: to serve as a uniform guideline for all types of handlers. Incident data continues to suggest that there is a need to supplement “Do Not Contact” in a way that relies less on handler discretion. For example, under the 2016/2018 Guidance a handler might evaluate and determine that they can safely resume an application despite the presence of a passing car, believing that people inside a car are safe from contact. Yet pesticide surveillance data has captured any number of ways in which people inside moving vehicles may be contacted by pesticides: via open windows, open sunroofs, and through the vehicle's ventilation system. In California in 2018, for instance, a student in a school bus was contacted by foam from an airblast application, which drifted through the open window (Ref. 18). While it is uncertain whether correct implementation of the AEZ requirements and 2016/2018 Guidance would have prevented the incident, it illustrates a scenario in which relying on the discretion of a handler could increase the human health risk of the application.

Finally, in light of comments, EPA believes that the 2016/2018 Guidance procedures do not necessarily reduce logistical burdens in the ways originally thought or as commenters described, if implemented correctly. The 2016/2018 Guidance did not create an exception to the 2015 WPS suspension requirement; the procedures outlined in guidance only describe when handlers can resume applications after they first suspend them and then evaluate the situation to ensure there will be no contact. In the case of a property bounded by an off-establishment road, the handler would still have to suspend the application when a vehicle enters the AEZ. If a handler is unable to suspend in time because visibility is poor or because cars pass through the AEZ too quickly, they would not have been consistent with the 2016/2018 Guidance procedures even if they had evaluated the situation before beginning application and determined no contact would occur. While the 2016/2018 Guidance may have reduced some logistical burdens, it did not allow applications near establishment boundaries to proceed entirely unimpeded. Thus, upon further consideration, EPA does not believe correct implementation of the 2016/2018 Guidance would result in substantial benefit. Moreover, with regard to concerns about ground-based applicators, EPA notes that irrespective of the AEZ requirements and any associated guidance, handlers are always required under the 2015 WPS to ensure that pesticide applications are made under conditions that ensure no contact.

EPA proposed to include an immediate family exemption for certain AEZ scenarios. Specifically, EPA proposed to allow owners and their immediate family members to remain inside closed houses or structures in the AEZ during pesticide applications. The exemption also permits handlers to proceed with an application under these circumstances, provided that the owner has communicated certain information beforehand.

EPA has finalized the exemption for owners and their immediate family members, as proposed.

Agricultural business stakeholders discussed logistical and financial difficulties for owners and handlers when housing lies within the AEZ. They described delays in farming operations if immediate family members were forced to leave the house during applications on their property. One farm bureau also noted the potential for delays stemming from houses located off-establishment less than 100 feet from the property line. This commenter noted that local regulations may not always require houses to be built farther away, and that it can be difficult for a handler to determine whether off-establishment houses are occupied.

As a result, NASDA and agricultural business stakeholders, as well as one advocacy organization, commented in favor of the immediate family exemption. These commenters noted that the exemption provides flexibility for farming families and reduces delays in applications.

Farmworker advocacy organizations discussed the potential human health risks associated with pesticide applications near farmworker housing. Commenters cited studies and anecdotal evidence of the poor quality of farmworker housing; houses may not be fully sealed to the outdoors, and cooking and laundry facilities may be open-air. These commenters suggested that the AEZ requirements do not account sufficiently for the risk of drift into houses or the risk of post-application exposure. In response, three organizations recommended that the AEZ be enforced as a buffer zone around employer-provided housing. One proposed an advanced notification requirement when housing will fall into the AEZ, so that residents can proactively take in laundry and cover cooking facilities.

Several commenters also elaborated on the logistical and financial difficulties that people who live near agricultural establishments face when housing falls in the AEZ, suggesting that families may be forced to relocate for long periods, and even overnight, due to ongoing pesticide applications. In response, one commenter suggested that applications near housing be restricted to certain times of day.

Two farmworker advocacy organizations stated that they did not oppose the exemption or took no position on it. One of these commenters recommended that owners clarify for handlers that the immediate family exemption does not apply to labor housing.

EPA agrees with comments in support of the immediate family exemption that suggested that the immediate family exemption will make some pesticide applications on family farms simpler and less burdensome. As stated in the 2023 Proposed Rule, EPA anticipates that owners will take appropriate steps to protect their family members in the AEZ; thus, the exemption provides flexibility at minimal risk to human health and without compromising the health of workers and non-family bystanders. As commenters requested, EPA plans to issue compliance assistance guidance. In this guidance, EPA will consider including best practices on communications between establishment owners and handlers to support the implementation of the immediate family exemption.

EPA agrees with commenters who cited studies demonstrating that the quality of housing in agricultural communities is variable (see, e.g., Refs. 29 through 32). Thus, EPA has limited housing-related exceptions to owners of agricultural establishments and immediate family members in enclosed structures on the establishment, as proposed. In the case of on-establishment structures occupied by the owner and their immediate family, the owner is likely to know about major physical deficiencies and whether the structure is sufficiently enclosed (for example, free from leaks and broken windows) to protect family members inside. In contrast, an establishment owner will have less insight into the quality of off-establishment housing.

EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns over pesticide applications near housing. EPA believes many of these commenters' suggestions, such as advanced notification or clarifying that the immediate family exemption does not apply to labor housing, can be addressed through guidance. Others, such as buffer zones around employer-provided housing, are beyond the scope of this action and would require additional analysis and public discussion to determine the appropriateness of buffers and buffer sizes around employee housing or other structures on the establishment where workers may be present. Employer-provided housing is not uniform (for example, workers with temporary H-2A agricultural visas may be housed in hotels off-establishment), nor is it regulated by EPA.

In its compliance assistance guidance, EPA will consider including best practices for handlers applying pesticides near housing, to take into account the logistical and economic difficulties that they may face. Some commenters have also expressed concern for people who live near agricultural establishments that may be disproportionately at risk from pesticide applications; EPA will also consider guidance that may include suggestions on best practices for communicating with people who live near agricultural establishments and whose housing may fall within the AEZ. EPA disagrees with commenters that communication about applications near housing is unreasonably burdensome. However, EPA will also consider including strategies that limit the need for such communication in its compliance guidance. For example, if local ordinances do not require that houses be set back more than 100 feet from property lines, handlers may need to adjust the application type or droplet size to decrease the size of the AEZ to 25 feet.

In Unit III. of the 2023 Proposed Rule, EPA asked for commenters' recommendations or considerations on improving the enforceability of the AEZ provisions.

In this final rule, EPA did not make any changes to proposed regulatory text based on public comments related to enforcement.

AAPCO, NASDA, and another agricultural business stakeholder expressed concerns about the enforceability of the 2023 Proposed Rule. AAPCO asked how AEZ violations would be documented or even detected in the first place, given that one would have to measure from moving application equipment to moving bystanders. NASDA remarked that it would be difficult to enforce AEZ requirements off-establishment, as handlers have no control over people beyond the property boundaries. Similarly, NASDA noted that enforcement of the immediate family exemption requires further consideration to ensure it does not become burdensome to handlers or regulators. Despite its other concerns, NASDA agreed that clarifying when applications would resume would aid enforcement.

In contrast, an advocacy organization suggested that the AEZ provisions should aid enforcement of contact violations. The organization stated that “Do Not Contact,” on its own, may be difficult to enforce, as farmworkers may be reluctant to report a pesticide exposure to authorities and healthcare providers might not recognize the symptoms. In comparison, the commenter suggested that it should be easier to prove the distance between application equipment and bystanders.

A farmworker advocacy organization offered suggestions to aid enforcement of the AEZ requirements, as well as the WPS more generally. Noting that farmworkers often fear workplace retaliation or immigration consequences, they recommended interagency collaboration, inspections that prioritize workers' confidentiality, unannounced inspections, and a general awareness of farmworkers' cultural context and language needs on the part of inspectors.

EPA appreciates the comments received in response to the request for recommendations or considerations on improving the enforceability of the AEZ provisions. To assist inspectors with monitoring compliance with the WPS, EPA provides two guidance documents: the FIFRA Inspection Manual and the WPS Inspection Manual (Refs. 33 through 34). These guidance documents are reviewed and updated periodically. The manuals include sampling procedures that may be used to confirm the distance the pesticide traveled. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the AEZ requirement complements the “Do Not Contact” requirement by providing a measurement that may be used for enforcement to better protect farmworkers and others from pesticide exposure.

Additionally, EPA funds training through a State and Tribal Assistance Grant that specifically addresses the needs of pesticide inspectors, including the conduct of WPS inspections. EPA considers the feedback from stakeholders to be invaluable to ensure that inspector guidance and training continue to address evolving needs, especially given the unique WPS inspection challenges identified by farmworker advocacy organizations, including the significant cultural concerns raised by the commenters.

The enforceability of the WPS is important to the EPA and the Agency appreciates all comments received. Permitting applications to resume once all persons have left the AEZ is sufficiently clear to provide an enforceable standard.

The risks of retaliation that farmworkers face from reporting pesticide exposures, though beyond the scope of the AEZ rule, are contemplated by other sections of the WPS. (See 40 CFR 170.401(c)(2)(xi) (requiring worker training on existing protections against retaliatory acts) and 170.501(c)(2)(xiii) (requiring handler training on existing protections against retaliatory acts)). Furthermore, EPA has requested that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), a Federal advisory committee to EPA, recommend how EPA can incorporate a deeper understanding of farmworker concerns about WPS inspections into training materials (Ref. 35). As EPA receives feedback on the WPS from NEJAC and other Federal advisory committees to the Agency, EPA will use this information to help inform its efforts to enhance training and to improve inspections and enforcement of the WPS.

EPA did not propose any changes to the “Do Not Contact” or Restricted Entry Interval (REI) provisions of the WPS.

EPA has finalized the 2023 Proposed Rule as proposed, retaining the “Do Not Contact” and Restricted Entry Interval (REI) requirements as written in the 2015 WPS.

Two farmworker advocacy stakeholders asked that EPA review more generally the “Do Not Contact” provision of the WPS, which the AEZ supplements. These commenters stated that pesticide exposure can occur not just due to direct spray incidents but due to drift, pesticide residues on surfaces, and pesticide vapors in the air. According to these commenters, an AEZ that exists only while the application is ongoing does not prevent these exposures. One commenter requested that EPA add additional entry restrictions post-application, suggesting that the existing REIs are insufficient.

A farm bureau also expressed its support for the “Do Not Contact” provision, though opposing other aspects of the 2023 Proposed Rule.

EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns over indirect exposure pathways. Drift that results in pesticide exposure is considered a violation of the “Do Not Contact” provision. REIs restrict entry to the treated area after pesticide applications to prevent exposure to pesticide residues. While the WPS does govern some aspects of REIs, such as requirement surrounding early entry activities, the length of REIs is determined through the extensive analysis of chemicals' effects on people and the environment during the registration and registration review process. To redefine REIs in this rulemaking would be to go beyond its scope.

To conform with the revised AEZ requirements, EPA proposed revisions to the handler training requirements at 40 CFR 170.501(c)(3)(xi). The new training requirements specify that “handlers must suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are in the application exclusion zone and must not resume the application while workers or other persons remain in the application exclusion zone.” The training requirements also incorporate the immediate family exemption, explaining that the applicator may resume the application “provided that the handlers have been expressly instructed by the owner(s) of the agricultural establishment that only immediate family members remain inside those closed buildings, housing, or shelters and that the application should proceed despite the presence of the owner(s) or their immediate family members inside those closed buildings, housing, or shelters.”

EPA finalized the handler training requirements at 40 CFR 170.501 as proposed.

Two farmworker advocacy organizations and USDA commented on proposed revisions to the mandatory annual pesticide handler training. One farmworker advocacy organization expressed support for EPA's proposal to bring trainings into line with the revised requirements on suspending and resuming applications. One farmworker advocacy organization discussed handler trainings more generally, encouraging employers to offer engaging, multilingual trainings.

USDA commented that trainings should also address pesticide applications at the boundaries of the agricultural establishment, including how and when handlers should communicate with people on neighboring establishments who may be within the AEZ. In keeping with its comments on maintaining language from the 2016/2018 Guidance, USDA also requested that handler trainings be updated to reflect procedures for situations where people off-establishment are in the AEZ, and to clarify how and when employers and handlers should communicate regarding the boundaries of the agricultural establishment.

Under the 2015 WPS, handler trainings are required to contain all of the topics for worker trainings at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(3), as well as additional topics such as proper application and use of pesticides, following label directions, and the AEZ and “Do Not Contact” requirements. Like worker trainings, handler trainings must be delivered in a format handlers can understand, such as through a translator, and must be held in a place free of distractions. All worker and handler trainings must be EPA-approved and presented by a qualified trainer of workers and/or handlers. (For the full list of handler training and trainer requirements, see 40 CFR 170.501.)

Through its cooperative agreements and its review and approval of individual training submissions as required by 40 CFR 170.501(c)(1), EPA supports the development of interactive WPS trainings for pesticide handlers in multiple languages. As of March 2024, EPA had approved 11 handler trainings (including trainings in both Spanish and English) that reflected the 2015 WPS. Because EPA is mostly reinstating the 2015 WPS requirements with some minor revisions, the training topics in 40 CFR 170.501(c)(3) will remain largely the same with the exception of adding content related to the immediate family exemption and clarification on resuming applications. Some trainings will also need to be revised to varying degrees to be reflective of changes in Agency policy moving forward under this rulemaking. While all approved trainings include the required content under the 2015 WPS, some trainings have gone further by incorporating some of the best application practices and procedures ( e.g., assessing wind direction before proceeding with an application) for resuming applications that were provided in the 2016/2018 Guidance (Refs. 4 through 6). That guidance will be nullified because of this action and will be replaced with new guidance (see Units V.K. and VI.B.). EPA will work with the developers of these trainings to update their AEZ content both in response to this action and the change in policy and guidance direction. Additionally, EPA will continue to review handler and worker trainings and ensure that they are in line with the new AEZ requirements under this action.

For reasons explained in Unit V.E., EPA is not codifying 2016/2018 Guidance procedures for situations where people off-establishment are in the AEZ. As such, EPA will also not require that handler trainings include those procedures. However, EPA agrees with USDA that employers and handlers would benefit from more clarity regarding procedures and communication when applications are made near agricultural establishment boundaries, especially if people off the establishment may enter the AEZ. Therefore, EPA will consider providing clarity for these and other circumstances through compliance assistance guidance.

EPA did not propose any changes to the AEZ requirements at 40 CFR 170.405(a)(1)(ii) to account for agricultural practices from different industries.

EPA has finalized the regulatory text at 40 CFR 170.405(a)(1)(ii) as proposed.

A trade organization representing the horticulture industry asked that EPA add clarifying language to 40 CFR 170.405(a)(1)(ii). The commenter noted that it is common practice in horticulture to apply pesticides directly to the canopies of ornamental plants. They asked that the language be amended to include “crop canopy” in the height requirements for the 25-foot AEZ distance criteria. Currently, if an application is made from a height of 12 inches or higher off the ground, it is subject to an AEZ, regardless of the distance from the crop canopy. The change the commenter suggested would mean that, if the application was made from a height of 12 inches or higher off the ground, but less than 12 inches from a crop canopy, there would be no AEZ.

When EPA developed the 2015 WPS, it did not intend to except from the AEZ requirements applications made from more than 12 inches off the ground but within 12 inches of a crop canopy. This rulemaking was focused primarily on reinstating the AEZ protections from the 2015 WPS, and therefore language around crop canopies goes beyond the scope of this action. EPA will consider clarifying in its compliance assistance guidance that applications made less than 12 inches from a crop canopy are still subject to an AEZ if they are more than 12 inches off the ground.

At various places in the 2023 Proposed Rule, EPA requested feedback on whether additional guidance is needed and how it could be improved for various AEZ provisions, including implementation for off-establishment individuals and individuals in easements, the ASABE droplet size standards, and the immediate family exemption.

EPA plans to supplement this action with guidance to assist stakeholders with compliance.

Many commenters requested that EPA issue guidance on this action. Several commenters asked for guidance clarifying the immediate family exemption. AAPCO requested that EPA provide guidance on the communication required to ensure that only family members remain inside closed buildings. They also requested guidance on how EPA will determine compliance.

AAPCO requested a general How-to-Comply manual on the AEZ for all stakeholders. To aid enforcement, they also asked for specific guidance and training for inspectors and State regulatory officials. A trade association asked for guidance for growers on implementing the AEZ off-establishment.

Another commenter asked for guidance on the notifications that establishment owners and employers must provide to workers.

USDA asked that EPA clarify whether it has previously developed an interpretive policy on the definition of airblast sprayers as they relate to the AEZ. If EPA has not, USDA asked for EPA to clarify where and when the interpretive policy will be published.

Related to its comments on the 2016/2018 Guidance, USDA also requested that EPA update the guidance document to specify whether then 2018 Guidance document superseded the 2016 one, and to clarify the term “treated area.”

One farmworker advocacy organization asked for the Agency to issue guidance on “Do Not Contact.” The commenter suggested that, to avoid violations, guidance should recommend that employers coordinate applications and fieldwork so that workers do not reenter a field immediately after application, but rather move away from the AEZ.

EPA plans to address many of the commenters' requests for guidance, as indicated throughout Unit V. Guidance will support establishment owners, agricultural employers, and handlers with compliance. Specifically, EPA will consider addressing the following topics, as needed, based on feedback after this rule is published:

• Best practices for applications near the boundaries of the agricultural establishment and in easements.

• ASABE standard as applies to the AEZ requirements.

• Clarification on resuming applications.

• Implementation of the immediate family exemption, including the fact that the exemption does not apply to labor housing.

• Best practices for applications near housing.

• Best practices for communication, including communication with people off-establishment and in easements; communication between employers and handlers regarding the boundaries of the establishment; communication around who remains inside closed structures during an application in accordance with the immediate family exemption; communication with residents of surrounding communities whose houses may fall into the AEZ; and advance notification of applications.

• Strategies to limit the need for such communication.

• How the AEZ applies to agricultural practices from different industries, including that applications more than 12 inches off the ground but less than 12 inches from a crop canopy are still subject to an AEZ.

• Clarify the relationship between the AEZ, REI, and “Do Not Contact” requirements.

EPA anticipates that some compliance assistance materials, such as the How-to-Comply Manual for the WPS (Ref. 36), may be updated through its cooperative agreements. Guidance manuals for inspectors, such as the FIFRA Inspection Manual and the WPS Inspection Manual (Refs. 33 and 34), are reviewed and updated on a periodic basis.

In response to USDA's request for clarification on what qualifies as an airblast sprayer, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Electronic Label (OPPEL) definition of airblast sprayer is a “general term describing sprays directed into the foliage with a forced air stream, usually created with a powered fan mounted on or pulled behind a truck or tractor typically used in a vineyard, orchard, and some nurseries. Includes electrostatic sprayers.” (Ref. 37). EPA will use definitions that are consistent with current agency policy and update its guidance as needed to reflect changes as they occur.

Given that there have now been changes to the AEZ requirements, the AEZ-specific 2018 guidance document, titled “Worker Protection Standard Application Exclusion Zone Requirements: Updated Question and Answers” (Ref. 4) will be replaced with new compliance assistance guidance. EPA's 2016 AEZ-specific guidance document, titled “Q&A Fact Sheet on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) Requirements” was superseded by the 2018 guidance (Ref. 5). EPA's 2016 document “Worker Protection Standard Frequently Asked Questions,” which provides answers to frequently asked questions on the full WPS (not just the AEZ requirements), will remain a resource for non-AEZ related guidance and will be updated consistent with this action (Ref. 6).

EPA is finalizing the 2023 Proposed Rule without changes.

Because EPA is finalizing the clarification on when suspended applications may resume, upon the effective date of this rule, the rule supersedes EPA's 2018 interpretive guidance document, “Worker Protection Standard Application Exclusion Zone Requirements: Updated Questions and Answers” (Ref. 4). EPA's 2016 guidance document “Q&A Fact Sheet on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) Requirements” was superseded by the 2018 interpretive guidance document (Ref. 5). EPA's 2016 document “Worker Protection Standard Frequently Asked Questions,” which provides answers to frequently asked questions on the WPS (not just the AEZ requirements), will remain a resource for non-AEZ related guidance (Ref. 6).

After this final rule is published, EPA will consider addressing the following topics, as needed:

• Best practices for applications near the boundaries of the agricultural establishment and in easements.

• ASABE standard as applies to the AEZ requirements.

• Clarification on resuming applications.

• Implementation of the immediate family exemption, including the fact that the exemption does not apply to labor housing.

• Best practices for applications near housing.

• Best practices for communication, including communication with people off-establishment and in easements; communication between employers and handlers regarding the boundaries of the establishment; communication around who remains inside closed structures during an application in accordance with the immediate family exemption; communication with residents of surrounding communities whose houses may fall into the AEZ; and advance notification of applications.

• Strategies to limit the need for such communication.

• How the AEZ applies to agricultural practices from different industries, including that applications more than 12 inches off the ground but less than 12 inches from a crop canopy are still subject to an AEZ.

EPA anticipates that some compliance assistance materials, such as the How-to-Comply Manual for the WPS (Ref. 36), may be updated through its cooperative agreements. Guidance manuals for inspectors, such as the FIFRA Inspection Manual and the WPS Inspection Manual (Refs. 33 and 34), are reviewed and updated on a periodic basis.

This final rule incorporates voluntary consensus standards by reference. EPA identified an applicable voluntary consensus standard developed by ASABE for defining droplet sizes. Instead of fully reinstating the droplet size criteria established in the 2015 WPS, EPA is incorporating by reference the ASABE standard identified as “ANSI/ASAE S572, Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra” and certain successor editions (ANSI/ASAE S572.1, ANSI/ASAE S572.2, and ANSI/ASAE S572.3) (Refs. 13 through 16) to enhance the Agency's compliance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note ). (ASABE standards, engineering practices, and data initially approved prior to the society name change from “ASAE” to “ASABE” in July 2005 are designated as “ASAE”, regardless of the revision approval date.) The NTTAA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 require agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory, procurement, and program activities in lieu of government-unique standards, unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The ASABE categorization of “medium” droplet sizes has remained largely unchanged despite various updates to the standard over the years. Updates of the standard are briefly summarized as follows:

1. ANSI/ASAE S572. Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra (Ref. 13). This original standard established 6 droplet size classes: Very Fine (VF), Fine (F), Medium (M), Coarse (C), Very Coarse (VC) and Extra Coarse (XC).

2. ANSI/ASAE S572.1. Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra (Ref. 14). This standard added two new classes: Extra Fine (XF) and Ultra Coarse (UC).

3. ANSI/ASAE S572.2. Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra (Ref. 15). This standard corrected flowrate values that were used to establish classification category thresholds but did not substantially change the standard.

4. ANSI/ASAE S572.3. Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra (Ref. 16). This standard updated some classification boundaries to harmonize with the International Standards Organization's (ISO) operating pressures established in ISO 25358.

Given the relative stability of the categorization of “medium” droplet sizes, removing VMD from the AEZ criteria and instead using droplet size classifications ( i.e., “medium” as defined by the ASABE; see Unit IV.C. and V.C.) is expected to provide a clear, practical, and easy approach for determining AEZ distances. EPA anticipates that this revision will improve compliance with other AEZ requirements and make it easier to enforce these provisions by eliminating any need to determine whether an application is over or under the specified VMD of 294 microns, as required by the 2015 WPS.

Copies of the ASABE standards identified in Unit VII.A. may be purchased from the ASABE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085, or by calling (269) 429-0300, or at https://www.asabe.org . Additionally, each of these standards are available for inspection at the OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. EPA has determined that the standards are reasonably available to the class of persons affected by this rulemaking.

If you have a disability and the format of any material on an EPA web page interferes with your ability to access the information, please contact EPA's Rehabilitation Act Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d) Program at https://www.epa.gov/accessibility/forms/contact-us-about-section-508-accessibility or via email at section508@epa.gov . To enable us to respond in a manner most helpful to you, please indicate the nature of the accessibility issue, the web address of the requested material, your preferred format in which you want to receive the material (electronic format (ASCII, etc.), standard print, large print, etc.), and your contact information.

The Agency intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the event that any individual provision or part of this rule is invalidated, the Agency intends that this would not render the entire rule invalid, and that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be left in place. The amendments to 40 CFR part 170 finalized in this rule involve separate aspects of the AEZ and EPA finds that each provision is able to operate independently of the others. This has been demonstrated by the Agency's revisions to the AEZ provisions from the 2015 WPS, to the 2020 AEZ Rule, to the current final rule. With each final rule concerning the AEZ, EPA has been able to retain certain provisions while amending or vacating others. For the foregoing reasons, EPA finds that the amendments in this final rule are severable.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this Federal Register document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(a), EPA submitted the draft final rule to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for review (see 89 FR 57770, July 16, 2024 (FRL-8528-04-OCSPP), with a copy sent to the appropriate Congressional Committees as required under FIFRA section 25(a). USDA responded and provided comments on July 24, 2024 (Ref. 38). USDA did not object to the final rule; however, USDA expressed concerns about the burden that the AEZ could place on growers and applicators in the absence of EPA's 2016/2018 Guidance. EPA responded to these comments on August 28, 2024, explaining its rationale for superseding the guidance and reiterating the importance of the AEZ as a uniform baseline requirement to support pesticide handlers and protect human health (Ref. 38).

In accordance with FIFRA section 25(d), the EPA asked the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to waive review of the draft final rule, as was done for the draft proposed rule. The FIFRA SAP waived its scientific review of the draft final rule on June 29, 2024, because the final rule does not raise scientific or science policy issues that warrant a scientific review by the SAP.

Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders .

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose any new or modify information collection burden that would require additional review or approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB Control No. 2070-0190 and it is identified by EPA ICR No. 2491.06. This action does not impose an information collection burden, because the revisions do not affect the approved information collection activities.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are agricultural and handler employers, and commercial pesticide handler employers. The Agency has determined that while reinstating several of the 2015 AEZ requirements could require agricultural employers to direct workers to move away from the edge of treatment areas as the application equipment passes, this would be a very temporary disruption in any worker activity and, as discussed in Unit III., would not lead to any quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments, including small agricultural operations. On the part of the handlers, the requirement to cease an application if someone is in the AEZ clarifies the applicator or handler's responsibility and is unlikely to result in measurable costs for affected entities.

As explained in Unit II.A.4., the 2020 AEZ Rule never went into effect due to a series of court orders staying the effective date of the 2020 AEZ Rule. While the discussion compares the effects of this action to the 2020 AEZ Rule, the AEZ requirements have always extended beyond the boundary of an agricultural establishment and within easements since it originally went into effect in 2018. Therefore, given that the 2015 rule has remained in effect since its establishment, there are no new impacts expected with this rule.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments and the costs involved are estimated not to exceed $183 million in 2023 dollars ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator) or more in any one year.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because 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 government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments.

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. While the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health ( Ref. 23 ) applies to this action.

The WPS is intended to apply to myriad agricultural pesticides, and the Agency has not developed a health or risk assessment to evaluate any impact of the amendments of the AEZ provisions for each pesticide subject to the WPS. The Agency finds that it is reasonable to expect that this rule will address existing environmental health or safety risks from agricultural pesticide applications that may have a disproportionate effect on children. Children face the risk of pesticide exposure from work in pesticide-treated areas or near ongoing pesticide applications, from the use of pesticides near their homes and schools, and from pesticide residues brought into the home by family members after a day of working with pesticides or being in or near pesticide-treated areas. Children also face the risk of pesticide exposure from drift. The rule is intended to limit these exposures and risks by reinstating AEZ requirements that no longer limit it to the property boundary of an agricultural establishment and expanding the AEZ back to 100 feet for sprayed applications with droplet sizes smaller than medium.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action involves voluntary standards subject to consideration under the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. EPA has decided to use ANSI/ASAE S572, ANSI/ASAE S572.1, ANSI/ASAE S572.2, and ANSI/ASAE S572.3 to define “medium” droplet sizes. Additional information about these standards is provided in Unit VII., including how to access them and our incorporation of these standards into the regulation pursuant to 1 CFR part 51.

EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns in accordance with Executive Orders 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). As noted in past assessments (Ref. 3), affected populations include minority and/or low-income individuals that may have a higher risk of exposure and/or are more vulnerable to the impacts of pesticides due to occupation, economic status, health and obstacles to healthcare access, language barriers, and other sociodemographic characteristics.

EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. This action will limit exposures to pesticides for agricultural workers, handlers, and communities adjacent to agricultural establishments; improve public health; and prioritize environmental justice by rescinding certain changes to the AEZ provisions that were reflected in the 2020 AEZ Rule but have not yet taken effect. This action will reinstate, for example, regulatory text requiring agricultural employers to keep workers and other people out of the AEZ during the pesticide application regardless of whether the individuals are outside of establishments' boundaries or within easements. Additionally, these changes will reinstate larger AEZs for those sprays with the highest spray drift potential. As discussed in Unit III., reinstating the 2015 WPS requirements for these AEZ provisions better balances social and health-related costs than the 2020 AEZ Rule.

EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice concerns by engaging with stakeholders from affected communities extensively in the development of the 2015 WPS rulemaking that originally established the AEZ requirements that the Agency is reinstating. Those efforts were conducted to obtain meaningful involvement of all affected parties. Consistent with those efforts and assessments, EPA believes this rule will better protect the health of agricultural workers and handlers by reinstating the complementary protections of the AEZ that were intended to support the “Do Not Contact” requirements within the WPS.

The information supporting this executive order review is contained in Unit III. and the Economic Analysis from the 2015 WPS (Ref. 21).

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

States that have received final approval from the EPA under section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an underground storage tank program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal UST program. Either EPA or the approved State may initiate program revision. When EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the UST program, States must revise their programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these revisions to the EPA for approval. Program revision may be necessary when the controlling Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when responsibility for the State program is shifted to a new agency or agencies.

On June 22, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Iowa submitted a complete program revision application seeking the EPA approval for its UST program revisions (State Application). Iowa's revisions correspond to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 State program approval (SPA) regulations (2015 Federal Revisions). As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State Application contains the following: a transmittal letter requesting approval, a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney General, and copies of all relevant State statutes and regulations. We have reviewed the State Application and determined that the revisions to Iowa's UST program are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements in subpart C of 40 CFR part 281, and that the Iowa program provides for adequate enforcement of compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). Therefore, the EPA grants Iowa final approval to operate its UST program with the changes described in the program revision application and as outlined below in section I.G. of this document.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule are already effective in Iowa and they are not changed by this action. This action merely approves the existing State regulations as meeting the Federal requirements and renders them federally enforceable.

EPA is publishing this direct final rule concurrent with a proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now.

Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register that serves as the proposal to approve the State's UST program revisions, providing opportunity for public comment. If EPA receives comments that oppose this approval, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the approval of the State program changes after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this approval, you must do so at this time.

On March 7, 1995, the EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program, effective May 8 1995, to operate in lieu of the Federal program. On March 7, 1995, effective May 8, 1995, the EPA codified the approved Iowa program, incorporating by reference the State statutes and regulatory provisions that are subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

On June 22, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Iowa submitted a complete application for final approval of its UST program revisions adopted on June 23, 2021. The EPA now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Iowa's UST program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. Therefore, EPA grants Iowa final approval for the following program changes:

The State also demonstrates that its program provides adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, subpart D. The Iowa DNR UST Section has broad statutory authority with respect to USTs to regulate installation, operation, maintenance, closure, and UST releases, and to the issuance of orders. These statutory authorities are found in: Code of Iowa Chapter 455B, Jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, Division IV, Solid Waste Disposal, Part 8—Underground Storage Tanks (455B.471 et seq. ), and 567 Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 134—Underground Storage Tank Licensing and Certification Programs, Chapter 135—Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks, and Chapter 136—Financial Responsibility for Underground Storage Tanks.

The following statutory and regulatory provisions are considered broader in scope than the Federal program, and are therefore not enforceable as a matter of Federal law pursuant to 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii):

More Stringent Provisions (Give examples):

The following regulatory requirements are considered more stringent than the Federal program, and on approval, they become part of the federally approved program and are federally enforceable pursuant to 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(i):

Iowa required the notification for USTs taken out of operation from January 1, 1974, to July 1, 1985, USTs that existed and still in operation on or before July 1, 1985, and those brought into service after July 1, 1985, making them more stringent: Iowa Code 455B.473(1), (2), (3).

Iowa specifically excludes residential septic tanks as being underground storage tanks making them more stringent: Code of Iowa 455B.471(11)(b)(1)(c).

Iowa specifically excluded piping associated with tanks used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored as being underground storage tanks making them more stringent: Code of Iowa 455B.471(11)(b)(2).

Farm and residential tanks installed in Iowa after July 1, 1987, are subject to the requirements of 567 Iowa Admin. Code Chapters 135 and 136 making them more stringent: IAC 135.2 and 136.1(4).

Iowa specifies when under dispenser containment must be installed depending on what dispensing equipment is installed or replaced, what connections are made to the dispensers, and whether or not replaced or new piping is within 10 feet given dispensers making them more stringent: IAC 135.3(1)(f)(2) and (3).

Iowa requires that owners must have tank tags affixed to the fill pipe in order to receive deliveries of product into the USTs they own making them more stringent: IAC 135.3(3)(c).

Iowa requires that a person installing an underground storage tank and the owner or operator of the underground storage tank must notify the department of their intent to install the tank 30 days prior to installation making them more stringent: IAC 135.3(3)(h).

Iowa specifies the codes of practice to be discussed during UST Operator training making them more stringent: IAC 135.4(6)(a)(2), (3); IAC 135.4(8)(a)(2); IAC 135.4(8)(b)(1).

Iowa requires that C UST Operator be retrained in 15 days making them more stringent: IAC 135.4(6)(i).

Iowa specifies what financial responsibility topics must be covered during Class A UST Operator Training making them more stringent: IAC 135.4(8)(a)(12).

Iowa specifies the types of methods used for monitoring containment spaces, how often the monitoring is done, and containment should be kept free of liquid or debris that would affect the monitoring making them more stringent: 135.5(5)(d).

Iowa requires a 60-day timeframe for implementing and installing free product recovery system approved by the department making them more stringent: IAC 135.7(5)(e).

Iowa sets requirements for returning a UST to service after an extended period of temporary closure making them more stringent: IAC 135.15(1)(f).

Iowa requires department approval for removals undertaken with less than 30 days of notice making them more stringent: IAC 135.15(2)(a).

Iowa requires that department receives notice of bankruptcy within 10 days making them more stringent: IAC 136.23(3).

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's approved UST program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to approve State UST programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 282 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA and any other applicable State provisions. The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the approved State program and State requirements that can be federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the approved program in each State.

EPA incorporated by reference the Iowa DNR approved UST program effective May 8, 1995 (60 FR 12631, March 7, 1995). In this document, EPA is revising 40 CFR 282.65 to include the approved revisions.

Incorporation by reference: In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the federally approved Iowa UST program described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available through www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA Region 5 contact listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify Iowa's approved UST program. The codification reflects the State program that would be in effect at the time EPA's approved revisions to the Iowa UST program addressed in this direct final rule become final. The document incorporates by reference Iowa's UST statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the approved and federally enforceable program. By codifying the approved Iowa program and by amending the CFR, the public will more easily be able to discern the status of the federally-approved requirements of the Iowa program.

EPA is incorporating by reference the Iowa approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.65. Section 282.65(d)(1)(i) incorporates by reference for enforcement purposes the State's statutes and regulations.

Section 282.65 also references the Attorney General's Statement, Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures, the Program Description, and the Memorandum of Agreement, which are approved as part of the UST program under Subtitle I of RCRA. These documents are not incorporated by reference.

The EPA retains the authority under sections 9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in approved States. With respect to these actions, EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State authorized analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Iowa procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 282.65(d)(1)(ii) of 40 CFR lists those approved Iowa authorities that would fall into this category.

The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's UST program are not part of the federally approved State program. Such provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I program because they are “broader in scope” than Subtitle I of RCRA. Section 281.12(a)(3)(ii) of 40 CFR states that where an approved State program has provisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program, those provisions are not a part of the federally approved program. As a result, State provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference for purposes of Federal enforcement in part 282. Section 282.65(d)(1)(iii) lists for reference and clarity the Iowa statutory and regulatory provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program and which are not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified in this document. Provisions that are broader in scope cannot be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will continue to implement and enforce such provisions under State law.

This action only applies to Iowa's UST Program requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. It complies with applicable Executive Orders (EOs) and statutory provisions as follows:

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), because this action approves and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action was not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because this action authorizes State requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law.

This action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action 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 government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA underground storage tank program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA grants a State's application for approval as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State approval application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, do not apply to this action.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations. Because this action approves pre-existing State rules that are no less stringent than existing Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report containing this document and other required information to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action will be effective December 3, 2024 because it is a direct final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 282 as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2024 allocations were published on December 21, 2023 (88 FR 88266).

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfers or combinations would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these three criteria have been met for the transfer approved in this notification.

North Carolina is transferring 1,835 pounds (lb; 832 kilograms (kg)) to Rhode Island through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2024 are: North Carolina, 2,329,900 lb (1,056,825 kg); and Rhode Island, 1,396,261 lb (633,333 kg).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.