[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58666-58674]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23718]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543; FRL-9995-47]
RIN 2070-AK49

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Revision of
the Application Exclusion Zone Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) to simplify the application exclusion zone (AEZ)
requirements. The proposed changes described in this document are the
only changes EPA is currently planning to make to the WPS provisions
that are now in effect.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Mosby, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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).
     Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to revise one requirement of the WPS (40 CFR part
170), adopted in 2015 (80 FR 67496, November 2, 2015) (FRL-9931-81).
Information supporting the 2015 final rule, including the proposed
rule, public comments and EPA's responses thereto, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184.
The Agency is proposing changes to the regulation and soliciting
additional information and public comment to inform its proposed
revision of the rule's Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) requirements.
EPA is proposing to clarify and simplify the AEZ requirements based in
part on input received as part of EPA's outreach efforts with state
lead agencies (SLAs) and various stakeholders after the 2015 rule and
through the Regulatory Reform Agenda process.

C. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    As further described in Unit II.B., members of the agricultural
community, including the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), State
pesticide regulatory agencies and organizations, and several
agricultural interest groups have expressed concerns with the AEZ
requirements in the 2015 WPS rule. EPA began hearing general concerns
about rule implementation and more specific concerns about the rule's
AEZ requirements from some State pesticide regulatory agencies
responsible for WPS and pesticide enforcement (i.e., SLAs) during the
Agency's extensive outreach and training efforts for those agencies
after promulgation of the 2015 WPS rule. Comments about the AEZ
included concerns about the complexity and enforceability. Similar
concerns were expressed through the Regulatory Reform Agenda outreach
process and are found in docket number EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    EPA has also solicited comments on the AEZ requirements from the
Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The PPDC is a federal
advisory committee that is broadly representative of EPA's stakeholders
with members from environmental and public interest groups, pesticide
manufacturers, trade associations, commodity groups, public health and
academic institutions, federal and state agencies, and the general
public. The PPDC meets biannually with the EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs to discuss regulatory, policy, and program implementation
issues. PPDC members discussed the WPS requirements for the application
exclusion zone in public meetings with EPA on November 2, 2017 and
expressed both support and some concerns with the AEZ requirements of
the WPS rule at the May 4, 2017 meeting. The transcripts for PPDC
meetings can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-ppdc.
    Clarifying and simplifying the WPS AEZ requirements was one of the
most repeated requests from SLAs. These requests, together with
comments received through the Regulatory Reform Agenda process and
input from the PPDC, prompted EPA's decision to develop this proposed
rule.

D. 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. 136-136y,
particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w. Additionally, in
accordance with the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 116-8), EPA is only proposing revisions to the AEZ
requirements in the WPS.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has evaluated the potential incremental economic impacts and
determined that these proposed changes will reduce existing burden.
Cost savings from the changes are largely in terms of reducing
management complexity both on and off establishment. However, EPA has
not quantified the anticipated cost savings. EPA remains committed to
ensuring the protection of workers and persons in areas where pesticide
applications are taking place. The AEZ and no contact provisions aim to
ensure such protections. EPA also has a strong interest in promulgating
regulations that are enforceable, clear, and effective. See Units II.C.
through II.F.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit confidential business information
(CBI) to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Proposed Changes to the WPS

A. Background and Existing Requirements

    Under the WPS established in 1992 (57 FR 38101; August 21, 1992)
(FRL-3374-6), the pesticide handler's employer and the pesticide
handler are required to ensure that no pesticide is applied so as to
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. These requirements
prohibit application in a way that contacts agricultural workers or
other persons both on and off the agricultural establishment where the
pesticide is being applied.
    The 2015 WPS rule added requirements to reinforce existing
requirements and enhance compliance with safe application practices to
protect agricultural workers and bystanders from pesticide exposure
through drift. The 2015 WPS rule established application exclusion zone
requirements (AEZ) for outdoor production, defined as the area
extending horizontally around application equipment from which persons
generally must be excluded

during pesticide applications. The AEZ moves with the application
equipment. For aerial, airblast, and ground applications with fine or
very fine droplet size, as well as fumigations, mists, and foggers, the
area encompasses 100 feet from the application equipment in all
directions. For ground applications with medium or larger droplet size
and a spray height of more than 12 inches from the ground, the area
encompasses 25 feet from the application equipment in all directions.
For all other applications, there is no AEZ.
    The 1992 WPS prohibited agricultural employers from allowing or
directing any agricultural worker or other person other than a trained
and equipped pesticide handler involved in the application to enter or
remain in the treated area until after the pesticide application is
complete. The 2015 WPS further prohibits the employer from allowing
anyone in the part of the AEZ (which can extend beyond the treated
area) that is within the boundaries of the establishment. For example,
employers and applicators have to ensure that workers in adjacent
fields or buildings within their establishment move out of an AEZ as
the pesticide application equipment passes; workers could return once
the equipment has moved on and the Restricted Entry Interval is no
longer in effect, if applicable. The 2015 WPS also requires a handler
to ``immediately suspend a pesticide application'' if anyone other than
a trained and equipped handler is within the AEZ, including any part of
the AEZ beyond the boundaries of the agricultural establishment.
    These restrictions were intended to reduce incidents, or the
probability of incidents, in which people in areas adjacent to
pesticide applications are affected by drift. The purpose of the AEZ
was to reinforce the prohibition against applying pesticides in a
manner that results in contact to others by establishing a well-defined
area from which persons generally must be excluded during applications.

B. Stakeholder Engagement

    EPA finalized revisions to the WPS in 2015 (80 FR 67496, November
2, 2015). During the Agency's extensive outreach and training efforts
for SLAs after promulgation of the 2015 rule, some SLAs raised concerns
about the AEZ requirements. Comments about the AEZ included concerns
about its complexity and enforceability.
    In accordance with Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda (82 FR 12285, March 1, 2017), EPA solicited comments in
the spring of 2017 on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal,
replacement or modification as part of the Agency's Regulatory Reform
Agenda efforts. EPA encouraged entities significantly affected by
Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments,
small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade
associations, to provide input and other assistance, as permitted by
law. EPA received comments from stakeholders on the WPS rule as part of
the public's response to Executive Order 13777.
    These revisions are also in the spirit of Executive Order 13790,
Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America (82 FR 20237,
April 25, 2017), which was designed to help ensure that regulatory
burdens do not unnecessarily encumber agricultural production or harm
rural communities. The Executive Order required USDA to assemble an
interagency taskforce, including EPA, to identify legislative,
regulatory, and policy changes to promote in rural America agriculture,
economic development, job growth, infrastructure improvements,
technological innovation, energy security, and quality of life.
    Information pertaining specifically to EPA's evaluation of existing
regulations under Executive Order 13777, including the comments
received, can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190. Approximately 25 commenters provided input
specific to the 2015 WPS AEZ requirements. Commenters included USDA,
State pesticide regulatory agencies, State organizations, an
organization representing Tribal pesticide regulators, a local
government advisory committee, an agricultural coalition, farm bureau
federations, growers, grower organizations, farmworker advocacy
organizations, a public health association, a retailer organization and
private individuals (Ref. 1).
    Commenters discussed the need for changes to several WPS
requirements, including the AEZ. Comments on the AEZ from organizations
representing state regulatory agencies and agricultural interests
raised concerns about the ability of states to enforce the requirement,
expressed a need for clarity about how the requirement was intended to
work, described problems with worker housing near treated areas, and
the perception of increased burden on the regulated community. EPA is
proposing revisions to these requirements in light of the comments
received from agricultural interests and State pesticide regulatory
officials.
    In addition to comments received through the Regulatory Reform
Agenda process, EPA solicited feedback on the WPS and AEZ requirements
from the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). In May 2017, the
PPDC discussed the implementation of the WPS (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-meeting-4). On November 2, 2017, PPDC
members discussed the WPS requirements for the application exclusion
zone in a public meeting with EPA. (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/november-2-2017-ppdc-meeting-transcript.pdf).
    Requests from SLAs to clarify and simplify WPS AEZ requirements,
together with comments received through the Regulatory Reform Agenda
process and input from the PPDC, prompted EPA's decision to develop
this proposed rule.

C. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    EPA is proposing to amend the AEZ requirements in the 2015 WPS rule
to limit the AEZ to the boundaries of the agricultural establishment.
EPA is also proposing to revise the provisions related to handlers
suspending and resuming applications, and the presence of persons on
the agricultural establishment during application who are not under the
control of the owner or agricultural employer. EPA is proposing to
simplify the criteria for determining the AEZ distances for outdoor
applications based on application method. EPA is also proposing to
amend the AEZ requirements for owners of agricultural establishments
and their immediate family members by expanding the exemption at 40 CFR
170.601(a) to include the AEZ requirements at 40 CFR 170.405(a). EPA is
not proposing any changes to the existing ``do not contact'' provision
in the WPS that prohibits a handler/applicator and the handler employer
from applying a pesticide in such a way that it contacts workers or
other persons directly or through drift (other than appropriately
trained and PPE equipped handlers involved in the application).

D. Revisions To Address Issues Raised About the AEZ Extending Beyond
the Boundary of the Establishment

    1. Proposed Changes. EPA is proposing several changes to the AEZ,
which are intended to work together to address concerns about the AEZ
and improve the understanding and implementation of the AEZ
requirements. The different AEZ

proposals are discussed in Unit II.E. through Unit II.G.
    EPA is proposing to revise the AEZ provision at 170.505(b) that
requires handlers to ``suspend the application'' if a worker or other
person is in the AEZ, which as currently described can extend beyond
the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. The proposal would
limit the AEZ to within the boundaries of the agricultural
establishment. This change would bring the pesticide handlers' duty to
suspend applications in 170.505(b) in line with the agricultural
employers' duty to exclude persons from the AEZ in 170.405(a)(2) so the
two requirements are more consistent.
    The AEZ is an area surrounding pesticide application equipment that
exists only during outdoor pesticide applications. The 2015 WPS added
the AEZ requirements to supplement the ``do not contact'' requirements
of the label and the old WPS to reduce the number of exposure incidents
during agricultural applications. The existing requirement at
170.505(b) requires pesticide handlers (applicators) making a pesticide
application to temporarily suspend the application if any worker or
other person (besides trained/equipped handlers assisting in the
application) is in the AEZ. The handler's obligation to suspend
applications applies if a worker or other person is in any portion of
the AEZ--on or off the establishment. EPA is proposing to revise
170.505(b) so the handler/applicator would not be responsible for
implementing AEZ requirements off the establishment, where he/she lacks
control over persons in the AEZ. However, EPA is not proposing any
changes to the existing provision in the 2015 WPS that prohibits a
handler/applicator and the handler employer from applying a pesticide
in such a way that it contacts workers or other persons directly or
through drift (other than appropriately trained and PPE equipped
handlers involved in the application). This provision will remain the
key mechanism for ensuring the protections of individuals off the
establishment from the potential exposures to pesticides from nearby
agricultural pesticide applications.
    After reviewing public input on the AEZ issues and concerns, EPA
has concluded that the ``do not contact'' provision provides the more
appropriate and enforceable regulatory mechanism to protect workers on
nearby establishments and other people/bystanders that may be off the
agricultural establishment but in close proximity to agricultural
pesticide applications. EPA has determined that the current WPS
provision extending the AEZ boundary beyond the agricultural
establishment is confusing and unnecessary. EPA concludes the costs of
including off the establishment areas in the AEZ do not outweigh the
minimal benefits of including the additional area in the AEZ, so EPA is
proposing to revise the WPS rule to limit the AEZ to the boundaries of
the establishment.
    These proposed revisions are intended to address the AEZ concerns
noted in the Regulatory Reform Agenda docket (Ref. 1). EPA received
approximately 25 individual comments on the AEZ requirements in the
Regulatory Reform Agenda docket from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, States, State organizations, a Tribal organization, farm
bureau federations, grower associations, retailer organizations, an
applicator organization, an agricultural coalition, farmworker advocate
organizations, public health organizations and individuals. Some of
these concerns were also expressed by State regulatory agencies during
training and outreach sessions that EPA conducted in 2016 and 2017.
Most comments about the AEZ in the Regulatory Reform Agenda docket
expressed concerns about the handler requirement to suspend
applications for situations when the AEZ extends beyond the boundaries
of the agricultural establishment and people are in the AEZ. A few
commenters supported revising the AEZ requirements while other
commenters urged EPA to completely eliminate the AEZ requirements in
the 2015 WPS rule (Ref. 1). Some points made by the commenters
included:
     The concept of a regulatory requirement to keep
individuals out of varying widths of areas surrounding treated areas
seems difficult for an agricultural employer to implement and next to
impossible for a State trying to ensure compliance. The logic behind
the requirement is understandable and supportable but making this a
regulatory requirement with an expectation of compliance monitoring and
enforcement is not.
     The AEZ concept was presented in the 2014 WPS proposal as
an ``entry restricted area.'' In the final 2015 WPS rule (80 FR 67495),
EPA replaced the term ``entry restricted area'' with ``application
exclusion zone'' to make it more distinct from the requirements
regarding Restricted Entry Interval. However, this change was not clear
to the commenters. The commenters suggested that the concept of the AEZ
was not proposed; and neither was the idea of the AEZ extending beyond
the boundary of the establishment. They suggested that this approach
was not well thought out, was not open for public comment, and was not
in the spirit of co-regulating with States and Tribes.
     Burdens and economic impacts upon agricultural operations
and employers were not considered or addressed. One commenter likened
this provision of the rule to an unlawful taking of private property.
     The AEZ requirement to cease application if a passing
vehicle is within 25 or 100 feet of the property could be problematic.
     EPA guidance addressing the implementation concerns does
not carry the weight of regulation and is not sufficiently clear for
growers and the state regulatory agencies to implement the requirement.
    The main revision being proposed is to revise the handler's
responsibility to suspend applications in 170.505(b)(1). In addition,
EPA is proposing to revise the handler training content in
170.501(c)(3)(xi) to reflect that proposed change.
    2. Anticipated Effects. The primary benefit of changing the AEZ
requirements is a reduction in the complexity of applying a pesticide.
The monetized benefits are difficult to quantify due to the variability
of off establishment activities that could be within the AEZ (Ref. 2).
    3. Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency considered
keeping the WPS AEZ provision at 170.505(b) that requires handlers to
``suspend the application'' as it is in the current rule but adding
provisions to the rule to better clarify the scope of the AEZ, as well
as issuing additional outreach material, and guidance if necessary,
about the handler AEZ requirements. However, such an approach would not
fully address all concerns with the applicability of the AEZ off the
establishment and would require more resources from EPA without
necessarily providing any additional benefits or protection. EPA issued
AEZ guidance in April 2016 (Ref. 3) which was revised in February 2018
(Ref. 4) in an attempt to address concerns raised by stakeholders, but
this guidance has not fully resolved all concerns. The intent of the
AEZ guidance was to provide further explanation of the AEZ requirements
in the WPS and to confirm that the AEZ requirements supplement the ``do
not contact'' requirement by defining specific areas from which people
generally must be excluded during a pesticide application. However, an
exception of the AEZ beyond the

boundary of the establishment where handlers do not have the ability to
control the movement of people off the establishment or within
easements (e.g., utility workers), which commenters argued can
effectively suspend an application activity, can only be accomplished
through regulation.
    EPA also considered the option of making no changes to the AEZ
provision at 170.505(b). However, that option would not address
concerns with the AEZ or the concerns from State and Tribal pesticide
regulators with compliance and enforcement issues related to the AEZ
applying off the establishment. Some State and Tribal pesticide
regulators have stated that the AEZ requirements applicable to
situations where people are in the AEZ but off the establishment are
unenforceable because the AEZ provisions do not apply if the applicator
does not see the persons off the establishment, and it would be
difficult if not impossible to prove the applicator saw persons in the
AEZ. State and Tribal pesticide regulators state that it is easier for
them to prove that a person has been contacted by pesticides from an
application and take action to enforce the do not contact provision.
This option would still leave EPA needing to address existing AEZ
issues through additional guidance and to address future issues needing
clarification through guidance related to the ``off establishment''
provisions. Therefore, EPA has elected to propose the revision to
170.505(b) as described above.

E. Revisions To Address Issues Raised About When Handlers May Resume an
Application That Has Been Suspended

    1. Proposed Changes. EPA is proposing to revise the AEZ provision
at 170.505(b) to add a paragraph clarifying conditions under which a
handler may resume the application after having to suspend an
application if people are in the AEZ on the agricultural establishment.
The proposed revision of 170.505(b) would also clarify how the AEZ
applies to persons not employed by the agricultural establishment who
may be working on or in easements (e.g., gas, mineral, utility, wind/
solar energy) that may be within the boundaries of the establishment.
These people are generally not within the control of the owner or
agricultural employer so their presence could disrupt and prevent
pesticide applications. EPA is not proposing any changes to the
existing ``do not contact'' provision in the WPS.
    The 2015 WPS rule was silent on if and when a handler could resume
an application after it has been suspended because workers or other
people were present in the AEZ. EPA never envisioned that the AEZ
requirement would lead to an application being suspended permanently,
and the proposed change makes EPA's expectations explicit. EPA is
proposing to revise the WPS to clarify that handlers may resume a
suspended application when no workers or other persons (other than
appropriately trained and equipped handlers involved in the
application) remain in an AEZ within the boundaries of the
establishment.
    EPA also is proposing language to allow applications to be made or
resume while persons not employed by the establishment are present on
easements that may exist within the boundaries of agricultural
establishments because, depending on the terms of the easement, the
owner or agricultural employer may be unable to control the movement of
people (e.g., utility workers) within an easement. The existing AEZ
requirement at 170.405(a) precludes an application from being made on
an agricultural establishment while workers or other people are in the
AEZ within the boundaries of the establishment. In developing the
original AEZ requirement, EPA presumed that all persons on an
agricultural establishment would be subject to the control of the owner
or agricultural employer, not recognizing the prevalence of easements
which deprive the landowner of the ability, in whole or in part, to
control the movements of persons within the easement. The proposed
revisions at 170.505(b) would address this situation by allowing
handlers to make or resume an application despite the presence within
the AEZ of persons not employed by the establishment in an area subject
to an easement that would otherwise prevent the agricultural employer
from temporarily excluding those persons. These individuals will still
be protected by the ``do not contact'' provision, so even though they
could remain in an easement in the AEZ, the handler and the handler
employer would be prohibited from allowing the pesticide application to
result in any contact to these persons. The proposed revision to the
regulatory text would be codified at 170.505(b).
    These proposed revisions are intended to address the AEZ concerns
raised by stakeholders during WPS implementation efforts and those
noted above from the Regulatory Reform Agenda docket (Ref. 1).
    2. Anticipated Effects. The primary benefit of clarifying the AEZ
requirements about resuming a suspended application is providing
certainty about when and how a pesticide application can occur. EPA
does not anticipate the proposed revision about when a handler can
resume an application when people are in the AEZ on the establishment
to increase costs to handlers or employers or to change the intended
protections to workers or other persons because this revision simply
clarifies how the requirement was intended to be implemented in the
2015 WPS. The proposal to address people not employed by the
establishment who are in an area subject to an easement (e.g., utility
workers) provides regulatory relief to handlers and agricultural
employers and may prevent pesticide applications from being disrupted.
However, EPA does not anticipate a change in the protections provided
by WPS to the people in the easements because the handler must still
apply the pesticide in a way that does not contact them, either
directly or through drift.
    3. Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency considered the
option of making no changes to the AEZ provision at 170.505(b).
However, that option would not address concerns about when a suspended
application may be resumed and could prevent pesticide applications
from being made when people are in areas subject to an easement.
Therefore, EPA has elected to propose the revision to 170.505(b) as
described above.

F. Revisions To Clarify and Simplify the AEZ Requirements for Outdoor
Production

    1. Proposed Changes. EPA is proposing to revise the criteria and
factors for determining AEZ distances at 170.405(a). EPA is proposing
the following revisions to simplify the AEZ requirements while
maintaining the protections intended under the 2015 WPS:
     Eliminating the language and criteria pertaining to spray
quality and droplet size and volume median diameter and using only
``sprayed applications'' as the criterion for determining the
appropriate AEZ distance for outdoor production.
     Limiting the criteria for 100-foot AEZ distances for
outdoor production to pesticide applications made by any of the
following methods: (1) Aerially; (2) by air blast or air-propelled
applications; or (3) as a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog.
     Establishing a 25-foot AEZ for all sprayed applications
made from a height greater than 12 inches from the soil surface or
planting medium, and no longer differentiating between sprayed

applications based on the spray quality or other factors for setting
different AEZ distances for outdoor production.
    During repeated outreach and training events during WPS
implementation efforts, it became clear to EPA that there was a great
deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the AEZ requirements
and the criteria for determining the appropriate AEZ distance. This was
also reflected in comments to EPA from some members of the PPDC and
submitted through the Regulatory Reform Agenda process. Some of the
specific points made by the commenters on the complexity of the AEZ
distance criteria included the following:
     It would be very difficult to enforce the AEZ requirements
in many circumstances because it would be challenging to determine what
the AEZ should have been during an application in many situations
unless it is simplified or there were additional recordkeeping
requirements (not recommended).
     The current rule refers to factors and criteria for
determining the AEZ (i.e., droplet size and ``volume median
diameters'') that are no longer appropriate based on new information
from the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
(ASABE). In July 2018, ASABE revised the standards regarding the
criteria for the droplet size classification system (Ref. 5). With this
proposed rule, EPA seeks to make it easier for the regulated community
to comply with the requirement while still maintaining protections for
bystanders and other persons. The current rule and criteria for
determining the AEZ are no longer appropriate based on information from
ASABE. The AEZ distances are currently based on factors that make it
difficult for some applicators to determine their required AEZ. This
has resulted in confusion and difficulty in complying with the AEZ
requirement.
     The AEZ distances are currently based on factors that make
it difficult for some applicators to determine their required AEZ,
making it difficult to comply with the requirement. The complexity has
resulted in many calling for the elimination of the AEZ altogether.
     Although there is a good rationale and basis for the AEZ
requirement, it needs to be simplified to make it more practical,
understandable, and easier to implement.
    EPA acknowledges that some pesticide labels will have restrictions
for applications that are different than the existing or proposed AEZs.
For example, the restrictions on soil fumigant labels are more
restrictive than the AEZ of 100 feet. In situations like this,
pesticide users must follow the product-specific instructions on the
labeling. As stated in 170.303(c) and 170.317(a), when 40 CFR part 170
is referenced on a pesticide label, pesticide users must comply with
all the requirements in 40 CFR part 170, except those that are
inconsistent with product-specific instructions on the pesticide
product labeling.
    After reviewing public input on the AEZ issues and concerns, EPA
concludes these proposed revisions will maintain essentially the same
level of protection as provided by the AEZ provisions in the current
rule, while addressing the concerns raised about the complexity of the
AEZ requirements and criteria. EPA expects that this proposal would
address the major concerns of stakeholders (when combined with other
options from issues discussed above) and could increase compliance by
making the AEZ requirements easier to understand and implement. The
proposed revision to the regulatory text would be codified at
170.405(a).
    Some of these proposed revisions are intended to address the AEZ
concerns noted in the Regulatory Reform Agenda docket. Commenters
raised concerns related to the general and/or overall complexity of the
AEZ requirements in 170.405(a) (i.e., that establish the criteria and
factors for determining AEZ distances) and the difficulty this creates
in being able to comply with these requirements and enforce them.
    2. Anticipated Effects. In 2015, EPA estimated that the cost to the
agricultural employer for implementing an AEZ around application
equipment would be negligible. These proposed revisions are simplifying
the existing provisions and not adding any new requirements or burden.
Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in any added costs for
the agricultural employer based on EPA's cost estimate of the 2015 WPS
rule.
    EPA concludes these proposed revisions will maintain essentially
the same level of protection as provided by the AEZ provisions in the
current rule because they maintain the same general distances. These
changes could increase compliance by making the AEZ requirements easier
to understand and implement. Also, the requirement for the handler
(applicator) to apply in a manner that does not contact workers or
other people continues to apply.
    3. Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency considered
making no changes to the AEZ provision at 170.405(a) or issuing
guidance to clarify and potentially simplify these AEZ requirements for
outdoor production. One member of the PPDC expressed concern that the
size of the AEZ was already minimal for aerial, air-blast, fumigation,
smoke, mist, and fog applications, and stated that the existing AEZ
should be upheld so that workers and their families do not lose any
level of protection. However, making no changes would not address
concerns from State and Tribal pesticide regulators related to the
complexity of the AEZ requirements and the confusion and consternation
in the regulated community caused by that complexity. Making no changes
to the AEZ provisions would not address concerns raised about WPS
compliance and would require more extensive training and outreach,
without added benefits or protection. EPA requests comments and
supporting data to inform EPA's proposed changes to the AEZ
requirements, on other options considered and any other suggested
changes that could simplify the regulatory requirements around the AEZ,
help SLAs improve their compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts,
and maintain appropriate protections for workers, handlers, and other
persons during applications.
    EPA issued interpretive guidance on February 15, 2018 addressing
the AEZ (Ref. 4) that explains what the AEZ is, describes the
responsibilities of agricultural employers and pesticide handlers for
the AEZ, identifies the actions that should be taken by the pesticide
applicator when someone enters the AEZ both when on and when off the
establishment, explains the circumstances under which a pesticide
applicator may resume a pesticide application after suspending
application as a result of a person entering the AEZ, and provides
instruction on how to determine the size of the AEZ. While helpful, the
EPA guidance has not fully resolved all concerns, does not carry the
weight and authority of a codified federal regulation, and may not
provide the necessary clarity to assist state regulatory agencies with
compliance activities for all AEZ issues. Therefore, EPA has elected to
propose the revision to 170.405(a) as described above.

G. Proposed Revisions To Expand the Exemption for Owners of
Agricultural Establishments and Their Immediate Families To Exempt Them
From the Requirements of 170.405(a)

    1. Proposed Changes. EPA is proposing to amend the AEZ requirement
or owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate

families by expanding the exemption at 170.601 to include entry
restrictions during outdoor production pesticide applications
(170.405(a)), to relieve burdens on family owned agricultural
establishments during pesticide applications.
    EPA is proposing this revision to address issues that arose during
implementation of the 2015 revisions resulting from the unforeseen
impacts of the AEZ requirements in certain situations. Stakeholders
raised concerns related to the AEZ requirement in 170.405(a) (i.e.,
that employers must not allow workers/people to remain in the AEZ on
the establishment other than properly trained and equipped handlers
involved in the application) applying to workers or other persons that
are in buildings, housing, or shelters on the establishment. When
workers or other people are in closed buildings, housing, or shelters
that are within the boundaries of the establishment, the employer
cannot legally apply the pesticide if those people are within the
boundary area of the AEZ--it is a violation of the WPS. There is no
choice under the current rule but to remove them from the AEZ before
the application can take place, regardless of whether the buildings are
closed or the handler can ensure the pesticide will not contact the
people. This raises specific concerns for owners of agricultural
establishments and their immediate families.
    In the case of owners of agricultural establishments and their
immediate families, family members cannot stay in their own home during
pesticide applications if the home is within the AEZ. Even though the
owner/applicator may be taking all the appropriate steps to ensure he
or she will not contact other family members in their home during
applications, it would still be a violation for them to stay in their
home within the AEZ during applications if this exemption is not
expanded. Although EPA acknowledges that there is an exposure risk for
owners and immediate family members present within the AEZ during
pesticide applications, EPA anticipates that family members will take
appropriate steps to protect other family members to ensure they will
not be contacted during pesticide applications, and that the AEZ
requirement therefore subjects owners of agricultural establishments
and their immediate families to unnecessary burdens. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to revise 170.601 so that owners and applicators would be
exempt from the provisions of 170.405(a) in regard to members of their
immediate families who are inside closed buildings, housing, or
shelters on the establishment. This should not impact WPS protections
for workers and handlers because owners would still have to observe AEZ
requirements for non-family member employees on the establishment.
Because the proposed exemption is limited to 170.405(a), family members
will still be subject to all other AEZ requirements.
    After reviewing public input on the AEZ issues and concerns, EPA
concludes this proposed revision will maintain essentially the same AEZ
protections provided in the current rule for owners and immediate
family members because of their interest in protecting each other. The
proposed revision to the regulatory text would be codified at
170.601(a).
    2. Anticipated Effects. This proposed revision is considered
regulatory relief and should decrease costs and burden associated with
the rule while maintaining essentially the same benefits by exempting
owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate families from
some regulatory requirements. The benefits of this change are not
necessarily monetary. However, some owners of agricultural
establishments and their immediate families may see more tangible
benefits if they are able to avoid costs of moving families from
housing or the costs of new equipment to change application methods.
    3. Options Considered but Not Proposed. EPA considered addressing
the AEZ issues by developing an exception to the AEZ requirement that
would identify appropriate conditions for allowing people to remain in
a building or structure in the AEZ. EPA also considered the option of
making no changes to the owner exemption at 170.601(a). However, the
Agency decided that it would be complicated to develop a national
regulatory approach in the WPS that would address the many variables
across the country where people might be in a building or structure in
the AEZ on the agricultural establishment. Making no changes would not
substantively address concerns identified by stakeholders (Ref. 1).
Therefore, EPA has elected to propose the revision to 170.601(a) as
described above.

III. Request for Comment

    EPA requests comments and supporting data to inform EPA's proposed
changes to the AEZ requirements, on other options considered and any
other suggested changes that could simplify the regulatory requirements
around the AEZ while maintaining appropriate protections for workers,
handlers, and other persons during applications. To ensure that EPA is
able to give your comments the fullest consideration, please provide
the rationale and data or information that support your position.

IV. 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.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this 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. Reference List of Public Comments Regarding the Worker
Protection Standard Submitted to Docket EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190.
2. EPA. Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Application Exclusion
Zone in the Worker Protection Standard, 2019.
3. 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.
4. EPA. Worker Protection Standard Application Exclusion Zone
Requirements: Updated Questions and Answers. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/aez-qa-fact-sheet-final.pdf. February 15, 2018.
5. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of
Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). Spray Nozzle Classification by
Droplet Spectra. ANSI/ASAE S572.2. July 2018.

VI. FIFRA Review Requirements

    Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has submitted a draft of the
proposed rule to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), and the appropriate
Congressional Committees. USDA completed review of the draft proposed
rule during the interagency review mentioned in Unit VII.A., and the
SAP waived its review.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and,
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared a cost analysis
associated with this action, which is available in the docket (Ref. 2).

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be a deregulatory action as specified in
Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). The EPA cost
analysis associated with this action is available in the docket (Ref.
2).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new or modify information
collection activities under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has
previously approved the information collection activities contained in
the existing regulations under OMB control number 2070-0190 (EPA ICR
No. 2491.02). This proposal does not impose an information collection
burden because the application exclusion zone requirements are not
associated with any of the existing burdens in the approved information
collection request.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves burden or has
no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. These proposed
changes would reduce the impacts on all small entities subject to the
rule, so there are no significant impacts to any small entities. We
have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule
requirements would primarily affect agricultural employers and
commercial pesticide handler employers. This action is also expected to
be a burden-reducing action and does not result in net costs exceeding
$100 million. EPA does not estimate the cost savings of the burden
reduction in this proposed rule. However, removing the requirements
should reduce the complexity of arranging and conducting a pesticide
application. If anything, these corrections should improve
understanding of the requirements, which would facilitate compliance.
The cost analysis associated with this action is available in the
docket (Ref. 2).

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have ``federalism implications'' as that term
is defined in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It
would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

G. 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). The proposed
rule would change the requirements around AEZs. There are no costs to
Tribes associated with the proposed changes because the WPS is
implemented through the pesticide label, so changes to the regulation
do not impose any new obligations on the part of Tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking
will not result in increased risk to children. The minimum age
requirements in WPS will ensure that children are not allowed to handle
pesticides or engage in early-entry work, helping to prevent children's
exposure to pesticides as handlers or early-entry workers.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects because it does not require any action
related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would
require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, pesticides, agricultural worker,
pesticide handler, employer, farms, forests, nurseries, greenhouses,
worker protection standard.

    Dated: October 24, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, as
follows:

PART 170--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  170.305 by revising the definition of Application
Exclusion Zone to read as follows:

Sec.  170.305   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Application exclusion zone means the area surrounding the
application equipment from which persons generally must be excluded
during pesticide applications.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  170.405 by removing paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D), and revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B), (a)(1)(i)(C), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  170.405   Entry restrictions associated with pesticide
applications.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (B) Air blast or air-propelled applications.
    (C) As a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog.
    (ii) The application exclusion zone is the area that extends 25
feet horizontally from the application equipment in all directions
during application when the pesticide is applied as a spray from a
height greater than 12 inches from the soil surface or planting medium
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) An appropriately trained and equipped handler involved in the
application, and
    (ii) A person not employed by the establishment who is in an area
subject to an easement that prevents the agricultural employer from
temporarily excluding the person from that area.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  170.501 by revising paragraph (c)(3)(xi) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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 within the
boundaries of the agricultural establishment and must not resume the
application while workers or other persons remain in the application
exclusion zone within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment,
except for an appropriately trained and equipped handler involved in
the application, and a person not employed by the establishment who is
in an area subject to an easement that prevents the agricultural
employer from temporarily excluding the person from that area.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  170.505 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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, other than an appropriately trained and
equipped handler involved in the application, is in an application
exclusion zone described in Sec.  170.405(a)(1) that is within the
boundaries of the agricultural establishment or the area specified in
column B of the Table in Sec.  170.405(b)(4), except for:
    (i) An appropriately trained and equipped handler involved in the
application, and
    (ii) A person not employed by the establishment who is in an area
subject to an easement that prevents the agricultural employer from
temporarily excluding the person from that area.
    (2) A handler must not resume a suspended pesticide application
while any workers or other persons (other than appropriately trained
and equipped handlers involved in the application) remain in an
application exclusion zone described in Sec.  170.405(a)(1) that is
within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment or the area
specified in column B of the Table in Sec.  170.405(b)(4), except for
persons not employed by the establishment in an area subject to an
easement that prevents the agricultural employer from temporarily
excluding those persons from that area.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  170.601 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 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).
    (ii) Section 170.309(f) through (j).
    (iii) Section 170.311.
    (iv) Section 170.401.
    (v) Section 170.403.
    (vi) Section 170.405(a).
    (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. 2019-23718 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25995-25997]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10531]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13417-002]

Western Technical College; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, Intent To Waive Scoping,
Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and
Prescriptions, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for Processing

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 13417-002.
    c. Date filed: October 21, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Western Technical College.
    e. Name of Project: Angelo Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the La Crosse River in
the Township of Angelo, Monroe County, Wisconsin at an existing dam
owned by Monroe County and regulated by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. The project would not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Western Technical College, c/o Mr. Michael
Pieper, Vice President, Finance and Operations, 400 Seventh Street
North, P.O. Box C-0908, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602-0908; Phone: (608)
785-9120.
    i. FERC Contact: Isis Johnson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The project would be located at an existing
dam currently owned by Monroe County. The dam was built in 1854, and
acquired in the 1920s by Northern States Power who rebuilt, owned, and
operated a hydroelectric project at that location until it was
abandoned and the generating equipment was removed in 1969. In 1998,
Monroe County rehabilitated the dam and installed new tainter gates
with cable drum hoists.
    The existing Angelo dam is an earthen embankment with a maximum
structural height of 20 feet (14 feet at the spillway) and a total
length of 507.3 feet. The spillway is constructed of reinforced
concrete and consists of four, 13.5-foot-wide by 11.4-foot-high bays
with 13.5-foot-wide by approximately 7-foot-high steel tainter gates.
In addition to the dam, the proposed project would consist of: (1) A
22.84-foot-long by 16.08-foot-wide trashrack with 2-inch clear spacing;
(2) a 14.5-foot-long by 16.08-foot-wide by 13-foot-deep reinforced
concrete intake structure; (3) a 20-foot by 20-foot by 20-foot
reinforced concrete box forebay; (4) a 24.5-foot-long by 26-foot-wide
by 40-foot-high powerhouse located at the right abutment of the dam
containing a 205-kilowatt vertical double-regulated Kaplan turbine; (5)
a 30-foot-long, 480-volt overhead transmission line connecting the
powerhouse generator to a step-up transformer located on a pole which
is part of Northern States Power's 2.7-kilovolt distribution line; and
(6) appurtenant facilities. The projected annual energy generation
would be 948,500 kilowatt-hours.
    m. Due to the dam already existing, the limited scope of proposed
construction at the project site, the applicant's close coordination
with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the
application, and the completion of studies during pre-filing
consultation, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the review
process. Based on a review of the application, resource agency
consultation letters, and the fact that no comments have been filed on
the final license application to date, Commission staff intends to
prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff
determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have
been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included
a public meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be
identified through additional scoping. The EA will assess the potential
effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils,
aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered
species, recreation and land use, and cultural and historic resources.
    n. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate (e.g., if scoping is not waived, the
schedule would be lengthened).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of the availability of the EA.......................   July 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10531 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P