Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80767 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0133; FRL–8528–05– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK92 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Reconsideration 

of the Application Exclusion Zone 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is finalizing 

revisions to the application exclusion 

zone (AEZ) requirements in the 

Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS). EPA has determined 

that several aspects of the AEZ 

provisions, such as those regarding the 

applicability of the AEZ and distance 

determination criteria, should be 

revised to reinstate previous 

requirements that better protect public 

health and limit exposure for those who 

may be near ongoing pesticide 

applications. To restore these 

protections, EPA is finalizing the AEZ 

rule proposed on March 13, 2023, as 

proposed without change. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 3, 2024. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the regulations is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

December 3, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0133, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additional 

information about dockets generally, 

along with instructions for visiting the 

docket in-person, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division (7508M), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 566–2376; 

email address: schroeder.carolyn@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

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. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

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. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

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. 

E. What are the estimated incremental 

impacts of this action? 

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.). 

II. Context and Goals for This 

Rulemaking 

A. Context for This Rulemaking 

1. The WPS 

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. 

2. History of the AEZ Requirements 

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 pesticiderelated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80769 

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. 

3. The 2020 AEZ Rule Modifying the 

AEZ Provisions of the 2015 WPS 

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. 

4. Actions Under Judicial Review 

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. 

5. EPA’s Reconsideration of Certain 

2020 AEZ Rule Amendments 

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 EPAapproved 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

further reason to reinstate the 2015 WPS 

requirements regarding the applicability 

of AEZs off the establishment and 

within easements. 

B. Goals of This Rulemaking 

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. 

III. Economic Analysis 

A. 2015 WPS Baseline Assessment 

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. 

B. 2020 AEZ Rule Baseline Assessment 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80771 

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. 

C. Additional Considerations for the 

Final Rule 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80772 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

IV. Proposed Changes to the AEZ 

Requirements 

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. 

A. Rescind Provisions From the 2020 

AEZ Rule 

The Agency proposed to rescind the 

following amendments from the 2020 

AEZ Rule and reinstate the 

corresponding 2015 WPS Rule 

requirements. 

1. The Area Where the AEZ Applies 

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. 

2. The Exception to Application 

Suspension Requirements for Property 

Easements 

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. 

3. The Distances From the Application 

Equipment in Which Entry Restrictions 

Associated With Ongoing Pesticide 

Applications Apply 

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. 

B. Retain Provisions From the 2020 AEZ 

Rule 

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 familyoperated farms. 

1. Clarification on When Suspended 

Applications Could Be Resumed 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80773 

2. Exemption Allowing Owners and 

Their Immediate Family To Remain 

Within the AEZ in Certain Scenarios 

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. 

C. Replace the VMD Criteria With the 

ASABE Droplet Size Classification 

Standards 

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. 

V. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

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. 

A. General Comments on the AEZ 

1. Comments 

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. 

2. Response 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80774 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. Area Where the AEZ Is Applicable 

and Exception for Easements 

1. Proposed Rule 

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. 

2. Final rule 

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. 

3. Comments 

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 offestablishment 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 offestablishment or in easements, and that 

pesticide applications are timesensitive. 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 offestablishment 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 offestablishment 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 offestablishment. 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 offestablishment will affect 

communication among handlers and 

others in agricultural areas. USDA 

expressed concern that handlers would 

have to engage in burdensome 

communication with people offestablishment, while two advocacy 

organizations suggested that extending 

AEZ requirements off-establishment 

would encourage positive, proactive 

communication among neighbors about 

upcoming applications. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80775 

4. Response 

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 offestablishment. 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 offestablishment 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80776 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

C. Distance Requirements and 

Replacing the VMD Criteria With the 

ASABE Droplet Size Classification 

Standards 

1. Proposed Rule 

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). 

2. Final Rule 

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. 

3. Comments 

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. 

4. Response 

While EPA appreciates the data and 

studies cited by commenters, the 

Agency has determined that reestablishing 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 labelspecific 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80777 

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. 

D. Clarification on Resuming Suspended 

Applications 

1. Proposed Rule 

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. 

2. Final Rule 

EPA has finalized as proposed the 

clarification on resuming applications. 

3. Comments 

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 onestablishment. 

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. 

4. Response 

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. 

E. EPA’s 2016/2018 Guidance on 

Resuming Suspended Applications 

1. Proposed Rule 

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 offestablishment or into easements (Refs. 4 

through 6). These procedures allow 

pesticide handlers to resume 

applications when people offestablishment 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 offestablishment) can only resume once 

people have left the AEZ, it nullifies the 

2016/2018 Guidance. 

2. Final Rule 

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. 

3. Comments 

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 commonsense 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

4. Response 

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. 

F. Exemption Allowing Owners and 

Their Immediate Family To Remain 

Within the AEZ in Certain Scenarios, 

and Other Comments on Pesticide 

Applications Near Housing 

1. Proposed Rule 

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. 

2. Final Rule 

EPA has finalized the exemption for 

owners and their immediate family 

members, as proposed. 

3. Comments 

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 postapplication 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80779 

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. 

4. Response 

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 onestablishment 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 employerprovided 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. Employerprovided 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. 

G. Enforcement of the AEZ 

Requirements 

1. Proposed Rule 

In Unit III. of the 2023 Proposed Rule, 

EPA asked for commenters’ 

recommendations or considerations on 

improving the enforceability of the AEZ 

provisions. 

2. Final Rule 

In this final rule, EPA did not make 

any changes to proposed regulatory text 

based on public comments related to 

enforcement. 

3. Comments 

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. 

4. Response 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80780 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

H. ‘‘Do Not Contact’’ and Restricted 

Entry Intervals 

1. Proposed Rule 

EPA did not propose any changes to 

the ‘‘Do Not Contact’’ or Restricted 

Entry Interval (REI) provisions of the 

WPS. 

2. Final Rule 

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. 

3. Comments 

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. 

4. Response 

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. 

I. Handler Training Requirements 

1. Proposed Rule 

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.’’ 

2. Final Rule 

EPA finalized the handler training 

requirements at 40 CFR 170.501 as 

proposed. 

3. Comments 

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 offestablishment are in the AEZ, and to 

clarify how and when employers and 

handlers should communicate regarding 

the boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment. 

4. Response 

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 EPAapproved 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80781 

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. 

J. Applications to Crop Canopies 

1. Proposed Rule 

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. 

2. Final Rule 

EPA has finalized the regulatory text 

at 40 CFR 170.405(a)(1)(ii) as proposed. 

3. Comments 

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. 

4. Response 

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. 

K. Requests for Guidance 

1. Proposed Rule 

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. 

2. Final Rule 

EPA plans to supplement this action 

with guidance to assist stakeholders 

with compliance. 

3. Comments 

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-toComply 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 offestablishment. 

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. 

4. Response 

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 Howto-Comply Manual for the WPS (Ref. 

36), may be updated through its 

cooperative agreements. Guidance 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

VI. The Final Rule 

A. Regulatory Changes 

EPA is finalizing the 2023 Proposed 

Rule without changes. 

B. 2016/2018 Guidance 

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). 

C. Future Compliance Assistance 

Guidance 

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 Howto-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. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

A. Incorporation of ASABE Standards 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80783 

B. Reasonable Availability 

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. 

VIII. Severability 

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. 

IX. References 

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. 

1. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Reconsideration of 

the Application Exclusion Zone 

Amendments; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register. 88 FR 15346, March 13, 2023 

(FRL–8528–03–OCSPP). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

03-13/pdf/2023-03619.pdf. 

2. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions; Revision 

of the Application Exclusion Zone 

Requirements; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. 85 FR 68760, October 30, 2020 

(FRL–10016–03). Available at https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020- 

10-30/pdf/2020-23411.pdf. 

3. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions; Final 

Rule. Federal Register. 80 FR 67496, 

November 2, 2015 (FRL–9931–81). 

Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-2015-11-02/pdf/2015- 

25970.pdf. 

4. EPA. Worker Protection Standard 

Application Exclusion Zone 

Requirements: Updated Questions and 

Answers. February 15, 2018. Available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543-0008. 

5. EPA. WPS Guidance on the Application 

Exclusion Zone. Q&A Fact Sheet on the 

Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 

Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) 

Requirements. April 14, 2016. Available 

at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543- 

0007. 

6. EPA. Worker Protection Standard 

Frequently Asked Questions: 40 CFR 

part 170. April 14, 2016. Available at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2016-04/documents/wps-faq.pdf. 

7. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public 

Health and the Environment and 

Restoring 2976 Science to Tackle the 

Climate Crisis. Federal Register 86 FR 

7037, January 25, 2021. https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021- 

01-25/pdf/2021-01765.pdf. 

8. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. 57 FR 38102, August 13, 1992 

(FRL–3774–6). https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-1992-08-21/pdf/FR1992-08-21.pdf. 

9. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, 

December 28, 2020). Amended Order Re: 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief. 

10. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, August 

15, 2022). Eleventh Stipulation and 

Consent Order Further Extending Stay 

and Extending Injunction. 

11. The White House, Briefing Room. Fact 

Sheet: List of Agency Actions for 

Review. January 20, 2021. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

statements-releases/2021/01/20/factsheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/. 

12. EPA. Cost Analysis for Revisions to the 

Application Exclusion Zone in the 

Worker Protection Standard. 2020. EPA 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– 

0543–0152. https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543- 

0152. 

13. ASABE. Spray Nozzle Classification by 

Droplet Spectra. ASAE S572 FEB2004, 

reaffirmed February 2004 (ANSI/ASAE 

S572). 

14. ASABE. Spray Nozzle Classification by 

Droplet Spectra. ANSI/ASAE S572.1 

MAR2009 (R2017), reaffirmed December 

2017. 

15. ASABE. Spray Nozzle Classification by 

Droplet Spectra. ANSI/ASAE S572.2 

JUL2018, July 2018. 

16. ASABE. Spray Nozzle Classification by 

Droplet Spectra. ANSI/ASAE S572.3 

FEB2020, February 2020. 

17. National Pesticide Information Center 

(NPIC). Specific data requested from 

NPIC. 2024. 

18. California Department of Pesticides 

Regulation (DPR). Data from the 

California DPR’s Pesticide Illness Query 

(CalPIQ). 2024. https://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/ 

calpiq/. 

19. EPA. Data from EPA’s pesticide Incident 

Data System (IDS). 2024. https://

ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/ 

f?p=359:1. 

20. National Institute for Occupational Safety 

& Health (NIOSH). Specific data 

requested from the NIOSH Sentinel 

Event Notification System for 

Occupational Risk—Pesticides Program. 

2024. 

21. EPA. Economic Analysis of the 

Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Revisions, RIN 2070–AJ22. September 

2015. EPA Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2011–0184–2522. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPP-2011-0184-2522. 

22. Executive Order 14096. Revitalizing Our 

Nation’s Commitment to Environmental 

Justice for All. Federal Register. 88 FR 

25251, April 26, 2023. https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

04-26/pdf/2023-08955.pdf. 

23. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children’s Health. 

October 5, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2021-10/2021- 

policy-on-childrens-health.pdf. 

24. Bueno, Mariana and Cunha, Joa ̃o & 

Santana, Denise. (2016). Assessment of 

spray drift from pesticide applications in 

soybean crops. Biosystems Engineering. 

154, February 2017, Pages 35–45. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

25. Kasner, E.J., Fenske, R.A., Hoheisel, G.A., 

Galvin, K., Blanco, M.N., Seto, E.Y.W., & 

Yost, M.G. (2018). Spray Drift from a 

Conventional Axial Fan Airblast Sprayer 

in a Modern Orchard Work Environment. 

Annals of work exposures and health, 

62(9), 1134–1146. https://doi.org/ 

10.1093/annweh/wxy082. 

26. Felsot, A.S., Unsworth, J.B., Linders, J.B., 

Roberts, G., Rautman, D., Harris, C., & 

Carazo, E. (2011). Agrochemical spray 

drift; assessment and mitigation—a 

review. Journal of environmental science 

and health. Part. B, Pesticides, food 

contaminants, and agricultural wastes, 

46(1), 1–23. 

27. Taylor, W. & Womac, A. & Miller, P. & 

Taylor, B. (2004). An Attempt to Relate 

Drop Size to Drift Risk. Proceedings of 

the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. 

28. Nuyttens, David & Baetens, Katrijn & 

Schampheleire, Mieke & Sonck, Bart. 

(2007). Effect of nozzle type, size and 

pressure on spray droplet characteristics. 

Biosystems Engineering. Vol. 97, Issue 3, 

July 2007, Pages 333–345. 

29. Quandt, S.A., Summers, P., Bischoff, 

W.E., Chen, H., Wiggins, M.F., Spears, 

C.R., & Arcury, T.A. (2013). Cooking and 

eating facilities in migrant farmworker 

housing in North Carolina. American 

journal of public health, 103(3), e78–e84. 

https://doi.org/10.2105/ 

AJPH.2012.300831. 

30. Keim-Malpass, J., Spears Johnson, C.R., 

Quandt, S.A., & Arcury, T.A. (2015). 

Perceptions of housing conditions among 

migrant farmworkers and their families: 

implications for health, safety and social 

policy. Rural and remote health, 15, 

3076. 

31. Gentry, A.L., Grzywacz, J.G., Quandt, 

S.A., Davis, S.W., & Arcury, T.A. (2007). 

Housing Quality Among North Carolina 

Farmworker Families. Journal of 

Agricultural Safety and Health. 13(3), 

2007, pages 323–337. 

32. Early, J., Davis, S.W., Quandt, S.A., Rao, 

P., Snively, B.M., & Arcury, T.A. (2006). 

Housing Characteristics of Farmworker 

Families in North Carolina. Journal of 

Agricultural Safety and Health. 8, 173– 

184 (April 2006). 

33. EPA. Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance Inspection 

Manual: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Inspection 

Manual. August 1, 2019. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-01/ 

documents/fiframanual.pdf. 

34. EPA. Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance Inspection 

Manual: Worker Protection Standard 

Inspection Manual. August 15, 2018. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2013-09/documents/wpsinspections

guide.pdf. 

35. EPA. Farmworker and Pesticides Charge 

to the National Environmental Justice 

Advisory Council. March 30, 2023. 

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ 

documents/2023-11/farmworker-andpesticides-charge-questions-to-the-nejac03.30.23.pdf. 

36. Pesticide Educational Resources 

Collaborative. How to Comply With the 

2015 Revised Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: 

What Owners and Employers Need to 

Know. 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticide-worker-safety/pesticide-workerprotection-standard-how-complymanual. 

37. EPA. Office of Pesticide Program 

Electronic Label (OPPEL): Smartlabel 

Vocabulary Guide Version 3. Accessed 

2024. https://www.epa.gov/pesticideregistration/oppel-pilot-documents. 

38. USDA. Re: FIFRA 25(a) Review of draft 

final rule: ‘‘Pesticides; Agricultural 

Worker Protection Standard; 

Reconsideration of the Application 

Exclusion Zone Amendments’’. USDA 

Comment (July 24, 2024) and EPA 

Response (August 28, 2024). 

X. FIFRA Review Requirements 

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. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and executive orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

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. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

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. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

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. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80785 

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. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

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. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

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. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

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). 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural worker, Employer, Farms, 

Forests, Greenhouses, Incorporation by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80786 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

reference, Nurseries, Pesticide handler, 

Pesticides, Worker protection standard. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended 

as follows: 

PART 170—WORKER PROTECTION 

STANDARD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 170.405 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

(ii), and (a)(2); 

■ b. Revising and republishing 

paragraph (b); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 170.405 Entry restrictions associated 

with pesticide applications. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The application exclusion zone is 

the area that extends 100 feet 

horizontally from the point(s) of 

pesticide discharge from the application 

equipment in all directions during 

application when the pesticide is 

applied by any of the following 

methods: 

(A) Aerially. 

(B) Air blast or air-propelled 

applications. 

(C) As a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog. 

(D) As a spray using nozzles or nozzle 

configurations which produce a droplet 

size of smaller than medium, in 

accordance with the meaning given to 

‘‘medium’’ in ANSI/ASAE S572, ANSI/ 

ASAE S572.1, ANSI/ASAE S572.2, or 

ANSI/ASAE S572.3 (all incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (c) of this 

section). 

(ii) The application exclusion zone is 

the area that extends 25 feet 

horizontally from the point(s) of 

pesticide discharge from the application 

equipment in all directions during 

application when the pesticide is 

sprayed from a height of greater than 12 

inches from the soil surface or planting 

medium using nozzles or nozzle 

configurations which produce a droplet 

size of medium or larger in accordance 

with the meaning given to ‘‘medium’’ in 

ANSI/ASAE S572, ANSI/ASAE S572.1, 

ANSI/ASAE S572.2, or ANSI/ASAE 

S572.3 (all incorporated by reference, 

see paragraph (c) of this section), and 

not as in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) During any outdoor production 

pesticide application, the agricultural 

employer must not allow or direct any 

worker or other person to enter or to 

remain in the treated area or an 

application exclusion zone that is 

within the boundaries of the 

establishment until the application is 

complete, except for: 

(i) Appropriately trained and 

equipped handlers involved in the 

application, and 

(ii) Owners of the agricultural 

establishment and their immediate 

family members who remain inside 

closed buildings, housing, or shelters 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 170.601(a)(1)(vi). 

* * * * * 

(b) Enclosed space production 

pesticide applications. (1) During any 

enclosed space production pesticide 

application described in column A of 

table 1 to paragraph (b) of this section, 

the agricultural employer must not 

allow or direct any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler involved 

in the application, to enter or to remain 

in the area specified in column B of 

table 1 to paragraph (b) of this section 

during the application and until the 

time specified in column C of table 1 to 

paragraph (b) of this section has 

expired. 

(2) After the time specified in column 

C of table 1 to paragraph (b) of this 

section has expired, the area subject to 

the labeling-specified restricted-entry 

interval and the post-application entry 

restrictions specified in § 170.407 is the 

area specified in column D of table 1 to 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(3) When column C of table 1 to 

paragraph (b) of this section specifies 

that ventilation criteria must be met, 

ventilation must continue until the air 

concentration is measured to be equal to 

or less than the inhalation exposure 

level required by the labeling. If no 

inhalation exposure level is listed on 

the labeling, ventilation must continue 

until after one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(i) Ten air exchanges are completed. 

(ii) Two hours of ventilation using 

fans or other mechanical ventilating 

systems. 

(iii) Four hours of ventilation using 

vents, windows, or other passive 

ventilation. 

(iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by one hour of mechanical 

ventilation. 

(v) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by two hours of passive 

ventilation. 

(vi) Twenty-four hours with no 

ventilation. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—ENTRY RESTRICTIONS DURING ENCLOSED SPACE PRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS

A. When a pesticide is applied: 

B. Workers and other persons, 

other than appropriately trained 

and equipped handlers, are 

prohibited in: 

C. Until: 

D. After the expiration of time 

specified in column C, the area 

subject to the restricted-entry 

interval is: 

1. As a fumigant ........................................................................... Entire enclosed space plus any 

adjacent structure or area 

that cannot be sealed off 

from the treated area.

The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section 

are met.

No post-application entry restrictions required by 

§ 170.407 after criteria in column C are met. 

2. As a Smoke; Mist; Fog; or Spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller than medium, in accordance with the 

meaning given to ‘‘medium’’ by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers in ANSI/ASAE S572, ANSI/ 

ASAE S572.1, ANSI/ASAE S572.2, or ANSI/ASAE S572.3 

(all incorporated by reference, see § paragraph (c) of this section).

Entire enclosed space .............. The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section 

are met.

Entire enclosed space. 

3. Not as in entry 1 or 2 of this table, and for which a respiratory protection device is required for application by the 

pesticide product labeling.

Entire enclosed space .............. The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section 

are met.

Treated area. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80787 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—ENTRY RESTRICTIONS DURING ENCLOSED SPACE PRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS— 

Continued 

A. When a pesticide is applied: 

B. Workers and other persons, 

other than appropriately trained 

and equipped handlers, are 

prohibited in: 

C. Until: 

D. After the expiration of time 

specified in column C, the area 

subject to the restricted-entry 

interval is: 

4. Not as in entry 1, 2, or 3 of this table, and From a height of 

greater than 12 inches from the planting medium; or As a 

spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or 

larger in accordance with the meaning given to ‘‘medium’’ by 

the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 

in ANSI/ASAE S572, ANSI/ASAE S572.1, ANSI/ASAE 

S572.2, or ANSI/ASAE S572.3 (all incorporated by reference, 

see § 170.405(c)).

Treated area plus 25 feet in all 

directions of the treated area, 

but not outside the enclosed 

space.

Application is complete ............ Treated area. 

5. Otherwise ................................................................................. Treated area ............................. Application is complete ............ Treated area. 

(c) Incorporation by reference. The 

material listed in this paragraph (c) is 

incorporated by reference into this 

section with the approval of the Director 

of the Federal Register in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

All approved incorporation by reference 

(IBR) material is available for inspection 

at the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact EPA at: 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., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading room and 

the OPP Docket is (202) 566–1744. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, visit https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. The material may be obtained 

from the American Society of 

Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 

2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085, 

(269) 429–0300, https://www.asabe.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASAE S572 FEB2004, Spray 

Nozzle Classification by Droplet 

Spectra, reaffirmed February 2004 

(ANSI/ASAE S572). 

(2) ANSI/ASAE S572.1 MAR2009 

(R2017), Spray Nozzle Classification by 

Droplet Spectra, reaffirmed December 

2017 (ANSI/ASAE S572.1). 

(3) ANSI/ASAE S572.2 JUL2018, 

Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet 

Spectra, ANSI approved July 2018 

(ANSI/ASAE S572.2). 

(4) ANSI/ASAE S572.3, Spray Nozzle 

Classification by Droplet Spectra, ANSI 

approved February 2020 (ANSI/ASAE 

S572.3). 

■ 3. Amend § 170.501 by revising 

paragraph (c)(3)(xi) to read as follows: 

§ 170.501 Training requirements for 

handlers. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xi) 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, except for appropriately 

trained and equipped handlers involved 

in the application, and the owner(s) of 

the agricultural establishment and 

members of their immediate families 

who remain inside closed buildings, 

housing, or shelters, 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 170.505 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 170.505 Requirements during 

applications to protect handlers, workers, 

and other persons. 

* * * * * 

(b) Suspending applications. (1) Any 

handler performing a pesticide 

application must immediately suspend 

the pesticide application if any worker 

or other person is in an application 

exclusion zone described in 

§ 170.405(a)(1) or the area specified in 

column B of table 1 to paragraph (b) of 

§ 170.405, except for: 

(i) Appropriately trained and 

equipped handlers involved in the 

application, and 

(ii) The owner(s) of the agricultural 

establishment and members of their 

immediate families who remain inside 

closed buildings, housing, or shelters, 

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. 

(2) A handler must not resume a 

suspended pesticide application while 

any workers or other persons remain in 

an application exclusion zone described 

in § 170.405(a)(1) or the area specified 

in column B of table 1 to paragraph (b) 

of § 170.405, except for: 

(i) Appropriately trained and 

equipped handlers involved in the 

application, and 

(ii) The owner(s) of the agricultural 

establishment and members of their 

immediate families who remain inside 

closed buildings, housing, or shelters, 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 170.601 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 170.601 Exemptions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) On any agricultural establishment 

where a majority of the establishment is 

owned by one or more members of the 

same immediate family, the owner(s) of 

the establishment (and, where specified 

in the following, certain handlers) are 

not required to provide the protections 

of the following provisions to 

themselves or members of their 

immediate family when they are 

performing handling activities or tasks 

related to the production of agricultural 

plants that would otherwise be covered 

by this part on their own agricultural 

establishment. 

(i) Section 170.309(c). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Section 170.309(f) through (j). 

(iii) Section 170.311. 

(iv) Section 170.401. 

(v) Section 170.403. 

(vi) Sections 170.405(a)(2) and 

170.505(b), but only in regard to 

owner(s) of the establishment and their 

immediate family members who remain 

inside closed buildings, housing, or 

shelters. This exception also applies to 

handlers (regardless of whether they are 

immediate family members) who have 

been expressly instructed by the 

owner(s) of the establishment that: 

(A) Only the owner(s) or their 

immediate family members remain 

inside the closed building, housing, or 

shelter, and 

(B) The application should proceed 

despite the presence of the owner(s) or 

their immediate family members 

remaining inside the closed buildings, 

housing, or shelters. 

(vii) Section 170.409. 

(viii) Sections 170.411 and 170.509. 

(ix) Section 170.501. 

(x) Section 170.503. 

(xi) Section 170.505(c) and (d). 

(xii) Section 170.507(c) through (e). 

(xiii) Section 170.605(a) through (c), 

and (e) through (j). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–22832 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 282 

[EPA–R07–UST–2023–0534; FRL–11633– 

02–R7] 

Iowa: Final Approval of State 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

Revisions, Codification, and 

Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 

or Act), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the State 

of Iowa’s Underground Storage Tank 

(UST) program submitted by the 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 

This action also codifies EPA’s approval 

of Iowa’s State program and 

incorporates by reference those 

provisions of the State regulations that 

we have determined meet the 

requirements for approval. The 

provisions will be subject to EPA’s 

inspection and enforcement authorities 

under RCRA Subtitle I and other 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

provisions. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 3, 

2024, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 4, 2024. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulations is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register, as of December 3, 2024, in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: pomes.michael@epa.gov. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–UST–2023– 

0534. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal https://www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and also with 

any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties, and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. EPA encourages electronic 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically, please reach out 

to the EPA contact person listed in the 

document for assistance. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

might not be publicly available, e.g., CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov. 

IBR and supporting material: You can 

view and copy the documents that form 

the basis for this codification and 

associated publicly available materials 

either through www.regulations.gov or 

by contacting Angela Sena, Tanks, 

Toxics & Pesticides Branch, Land 

Chemical, and Redevelopment Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219; (913) 551–7989; 

sena.angela@epa.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need access to material indexed but not 

provided in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael L Pomes, Remediation Branch, 

Land, Chemical, and Redevelopment 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 W Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; 

(312) 886–2406; pomes.michael@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Approval of Revisions to Iowa’s 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

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. 

B. What decisions has the EPA made in 

this rule? 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES