Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates With the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate, 37045-37048 [2011-15883]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. EPA Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for each
category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document
as well as each major source in
nonattainment areas (see sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)), must not interfere
with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP) or any other
applicable requirement of the Act (CAA
110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment
area, any SIP-approved control
requirement in effect before November
15, 1990 (CAA 193). The SJVUAPCD
regulates an ozone and nonattainment
area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354
must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability and
RACT requirements consistently
include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX
Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November
25, 1992.
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,’’ US
EPA, January 2001.
5. ‘‘Interim White Paper—Midwest
RPO Candidate Control Measure: Glass
Manufacturing’’, Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium, December 12,
2005.
6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document— NOX Emissions from Glass
Manufacturing’’, US EPA, June 1994.
7. ‘‘Integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control (IPPC) Reference Document
on Best Available Techniques in the
Glass Manufacturing Industry’’,
European Commission, December 2001.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with
the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP
relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Jun 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rule but are not currently the basis for
rule disapproval.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted
rule fulfills all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve it as
described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30
days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period,
we intend to publish a final approval
action that will incorporate this rule
into the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37045
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 14, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–15882 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 171
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0049; FRL–8863–7]
RIN 2070–AJ77
Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of
EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates
With the Underlying State or Tribal
Applicator Certificate
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Restricted use pesticides
(RUP) are those which may generally
cause unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment without additional
restrictions. RUPs may only be applied
by or under the direct supervision of an
applicator certified as competent by a
certifying agency. A State, tribe, or
Federal agency becomes a certifying
agency by receiving approval from EPA
on their certification plan. In areas not
covered by a certifying agency, EPA may
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
establish a Federal certification plan
and issue Federal certificates directly. In
cases where EPA will issue a Federal
certificate based on an existing valid
certificate from a certifying agency, this
proposed rule would synchronize the
expiration dates on the Federal
certificate with that of the certificate on
which it is based.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 23, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0049, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
0049. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line 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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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 with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Jun 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the
electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amaris Johnson, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (703) 305–
9542; fax number: (703) 308–2962;
e-mail address:
johnson.amaris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are or intend to
become a certified applicator under an
EPA Federal certification plan. Certified
applicators are included in 3 major
industries in the North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) described as crop production,
animal production or exterminating,
and pest control services. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop Production (NAICS code 111),
e.g., individuals that are private
certified applicators on farms.
• Animal Production (NAICS code
112), e.g., individuals that are private
certified applicators on farms.
• Exterminating and Pest Control
Services (NAICS code 561710), e.g.,
individuals that are commercial
certified applicators for hire.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The NAICS codes have been
provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might
apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through regulations.gov or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI 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 so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the agency’s authority for
taking this action?
This proposed rule is issued pursuant
to the authority given the EPA
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Administrator in sections 11 and 25 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Section 11 of
FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136i, requires EPA to
provide certification plans for
applicators of restricted use pesticides.
Section 25 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136w,
authorizes EPA to issue regulations to
carry out provisions of FIFRA.
III. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR
171.11(e). This action would
synchronize the expiration dates for the
EPA Federal and certifying agency
certifications of restricted use pesticide
applicators. This minor revision does
not pose any additional requirement or
burden, and is expected to have a
beneficial impact on affected entities,
without impacting human health or the
environment. EPA will benefit through
the reduction of administration of
Federal certification plans.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Background
Under the provisions of FIFRA
section 3(d)(1)(C), EPA shall classify a
pesticide for restricted use, if, absent
additional regulatory restrictions, the
Agency determines that it may generally
cause unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment. RUPs may only be
applied by a certified applicator or
under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
Pesticide applicators can be certified
either by a certifying agency (a State,
Tribe, or non-EPA Federal agency that
has an EPA-approved certification plan),
or directly by EPA through a Federal
certification plan for an area or situation
not covered by a certifying agency’s
plan. Applicators must demonstrate
competency to the certifying agency
granting the certificate, according to the
requirements of that agency’s plan.
Currently, all 50 States and four tribes
are certifying agencies (i.e., they
implement their EPA-approved
certification plans). Applicators
certified by a State or a certifying tribe
may apply RUPs in their State or that
tribe’s Indian country without a Federal
certificate. However, under 40 CFR
171.11, in areas where there is no EPAapproved certification plan in effect
(currently, most of Indian country), EPA
may implement a Federal plan, thereby
allowing applicators to use RUPs in the
area covered by the plan after receiving
Federal certification. Under 40 CFR
171.11(e), a Federal plan may include
an option that allows applicators to be
issued an EPA Federal certificate after
submitting to EPA a certification form
along with documentation of a valid
certificate from a certifying agency,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Jun 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
without further demonstration of
competency.
Applicator certificates have expiration
dates to help ensure that certified
applicators maintain their competency.
All certifying agencies implement a
recertification program for applicators.
These programs require certified
applicators to continue to meet the
competency requirements either
through continuing education or
examination.
V. Why is the agency taking this action?
Section 171.11(e) states that an EPA
Federal certificate based on a certifying
agency’s certificate is valid for 2 years
for commercial applicators and 3 years
for private applicators, or until the
expiration date of the original certifying
agency certificate, whichever occurs
first. The duration of the certification
period varies significantly among States,
with some currently being shorter and
some longer than the Federal certificate
maximum of 2 or 3 years. This proposed
rule would eliminate the 2 or 3 year
maximum for Federal certificates, and
allow Federal certification to expire at
the same time as the underlying
certifying agency certificate. Therefore,
applicators who obtain Federal
certification using a State certificate that
expires in the same time as the current
Federal maximum, or shorter time,
would not be affected by this proposed
rule.
However, the proposed rule would
eliminate potential drawbacks to
applicators holding a Federal certificate
when the underlying State certificate is
valid for a longer time period than the
maximum 2 or 3 years for the EPA
Federal certificate. Under the current
regulation, for an applicator certified in
such a State to continue a Federal
certification, prior to expiration of their
Federal certificate they would need to
complete a new application form and
again provide written evidence of the
valid state certification. Federal
recertification in this situation becomes
an unnecessary, additional paperwork
burden for both EPA and the applicator
with no additional benefits to human
health or the environment since the
applicator can reapply for a Federal
certificate using the same underlying
certificate with no new demonstration
of competency.
A potential benefit to Federal
recertification occurring more
frequently than the State’s, is that in
checking the current validity of the
applicant’s underlying State certificate,
EPA may discover that the issuing State
has modified, suspended, or revoked the
certificate, thereby giving EPA the
opportunity to deny the recertification
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37047
application or modify the new Federal
certificate. However, EPA expects to
learn of modifications, suspensions, or
revocations of State certificates
independent of the timing of Federal
recertification. Given that EPA would
make decisions on modifications,
suspensions, or revocations of Federal
certificates independent of
recertification, Federal recertification at
a different time from the State
recertification would be of no benefit.
Federal recertification at the same time
as the State recertification, as proposed,
would be beneficial in that it would be
a recertification based on newly
demonstrated competency. In addition,
different expiration dates for the Federal
certificate and the original certificate
may cause unnecessary complication
and confusion for applicators and EPA.
The added confusion and paperwork
lowers the probability of successful
compliance by the regulated
community.
VI. FIFRA Mandated Reviews
In accordance with FIFRA section
25(a) and (d), EPA submitted a draft of
this proposed rule to the Committee on
Agriculture in the House of
Representatives, the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in
the United States Senate, the Secretary
of Agriculture, and the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and the
Secretary of Agriculture waived review
of this proposed rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to allow EPA to
use the same expiration date for the
certification it grants, using the
expiration date of the valid certification
upon which the EPA certification is
based. It does not otherwise propose to
amend or impose any other
requirements. The proposed rule will
not otherwise involve any significant
policy or legal issues, and will not
increase existing costs. In fact,
synchronizing the expiration dates can
reduce burden because some applicators
will have to complete less paperwork by
having a reduced frequency of Federal
recertification.
As such, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that
this is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Nor does it impose any additional
information collection burden that
requires review by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
information collection activities
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37048
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
contained in the regulations are already
approved under OMB control number
2070–0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.09) and
the changes to the expiration date are
not expected to change the covered
activities. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for certain EPA regulations in
40 CFR, in addition to appearing in the
Federal Register, are also listed in 40
CFR part 9.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed rule does not
have a significant adverse economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed revision that
would synchronize the certification
expiration dates for restricted use
applicators is not expected to have any
adverse economic impacts on affected
entities, regardless of their size. In
general, EPA strives to minimize
potential adverse impacts on small
entities when developing regulations to
achieve the environmental and human
health protection goals of the statute
and EPA. EPA solicits comments
specifically about potential small
business impacts.
State, local, and tribal governments
are not regulated by or affected by this
proposed rule, so it is not expected to
affect these governments. Accordingly,
pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1531–1538), EPA has determined that
this action is not subject to the
requirements in sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA because it does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or for the private sector
in any 1 year. In addition, this action
does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate,
as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not have ‘‘federalism implications’’ as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because 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 the
Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed rule.
Nor does it have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Jun 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
22951, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
Since this action is not economically
significant under Executive Order
12866, it is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), and Executive Order
13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition,
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, which is not the case in this
proposed rule.
This action does not involve technical
standards that would require the
consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C.
272 note).
This action does not have an adverse
impact on the environmental and health
conditions in low-income and minority
communities. Therefore, this action
does not involve special consideration
of environmental justice related issues
as specified in Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171
Environmental protection, Indians—
lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 14, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 171
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136i and 136w.
2. Amend § 171.11 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 171.11 Federal certification of pesticide
applicators in States or on Indian
Reservations where there is no approved
State or Tribal certification plan in effect.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Recognition of other certificates.
The Administrator may issue a
certificate to an individual possessing
any other valid Federal, State, or Tribal
certificate without further
demonstration of competency. The
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
individual shall submit the EPA
certification form and written evidence
of valid certification to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. The Administrator
may deny issuance of such certificate if
the standards of competency for each
category or subcategory identified in the
other Federal, State, or Tribal certificate
are not sufficiently comparable to justify
waiving further demonstration of
competency. The Administrator may
revoke, suspend, or modify such
certificate if the Federal, State, or Tribal
certificate upon which it is based is
revoked, suspended, or modified.
Unless suspended or revoked, a
certificate issued under this paragraph
is valid until the expiration date of the
Federal, State, or Tribal certificate.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–15883 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0307; FRL–9323–8]
Louisiana; Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The State of Louisiana has
applied to EPA for Final authorization
of the changes to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA proposes to grant Final
authorization to the State of Louisiana.
In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section
of this Federal Register, EPA is
authorizing the changes by an
immediate final rule. EPA did not make
a proposal prior to the immediate final
rule because we believe this action is
not controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this
authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get
written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment
period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it
establishes, and we will not take further
action on this proposal. If we receive
comments that oppose this action, we
will withdraw the immediate final rule
and it will not take effect. We will then
respond to public comments in a later
final rule based on this proposal. You
may not have another opportunity for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37045-37048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15883]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 171
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0049; FRL-8863-7]
RIN 2070-AJ77
Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator
Certificates With the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Restricted use pesticides (RUP) are those which may generally
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment without
additional restrictions. RUPs may only be applied by or under the
direct supervision of an applicator certified as competent by a
certifying agency. A State, tribe, or Federal agency becomes a
certifying agency by receiving approval from EPA on their certification
plan. In areas not covered by a certifying agency, EPA may
[[Page 37046]]
establish a Federal certification plan and issue Federal certificates
directly. In cases where EPA will issue a Federal certificate based on
an existing valid certificate from a certifying agency, this proposed
rule would synchronize the expiration dates on the Federal certificate
with that of the certificate on which it is based.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0049, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amaris Johnson, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 305-9542; fax number: (703) 308-2962; e-
mail address: johnson.amaris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are or intend
to become a certified applicator under an EPA Federal certification
plan. Certified applicators are included in 3 major industries in the
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) described as
crop production, animal production or exterminating, and pest control
services. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not
limited to:
Crop Production (NAICS code 111), e.g., individuals that
are private certified applicators on farms.
Animal Production (NAICS code 112), e.g., individuals that
are private certified applicators on farms.
Exterminating and Pest Control Services (NAICS code
561710), e.g., individuals that are commercial certified applicators
for hire.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others
in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI 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 so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
This proposed rule is issued pursuant to the authority given the
EPA
[[Page 37047]]
Administrator in sections 11 and 25 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Section 11 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C.
136i, requires EPA to provide certification plans for applicators of
restricted use pesticides. Section 25 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136w,
authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.
III. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 171.11(e). This action would
synchronize the expiration dates for the EPA Federal and certifying
agency certifications of restricted use pesticide applicators. This
minor revision does not pose any additional requirement or burden, and
is expected to have a beneficial impact on affected entities, without
impacting human health or the environment. EPA will benefit through the
reduction of administration of Federal certification plans.
IV. Background
Under the provisions of FIFRA section 3(d)(1)(C), EPA shall
classify a pesticide for restricted use, if, absent additional
regulatory restrictions, the Agency determines that it may generally
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. RUPs may only be
applied by a certified applicator or under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.
Pesticide applicators can be certified either by a certifying
agency (a State, Tribe, or non-EPA Federal agency that has an EPA-
approved certification plan), or directly by EPA through a Federal
certification plan for an area or situation not covered by a certifying
agency's plan. Applicators must demonstrate competency to the
certifying agency granting the certificate, according to the
requirements of that agency's plan. Currently, all 50 States and four
tribes are certifying agencies (i.e., they implement their EPA-approved
certification plans). Applicators certified by a State or a certifying
tribe may apply RUPs in their State or that tribe's Indian country
without a Federal certificate. However, under 40 CFR 171.11, in areas
where there is no EPA-approved certification plan in effect (currently,
most of Indian country), EPA may implement a Federal plan, thereby
allowing applicators to use RUPs in the area covered by the plan after
receiving Federal certification. Under 40 CFR 171.11(e), a Federal plan
may include an option that allows applicators to be issued an EPA
Federal certificate after submitting to EPA a certification form along
with documentation of a valid certificate from a certifying agency,
without further demonstration of competency.
Applicator certificates have expiration dates to help ensure that
certified applicators maintain their competency. All certifying
agencies implement a recertification program for applicators. These
programs require certified applicators to continue to meet the
competency requirements either through continuing education or
examination.
V. Why is the agency taking this action?
Section 171.11(e) states that an EPA Federal certificate based on a
certifying agency's certificate is valid for 2 years for commercial
applicators and 3 years for private applicators, or until the
expiration date of the original certifying agency certificate,
whichever occurs first. The duration of the certification period varies
significantly among States, with some currently being shorter and some
longer than the Federal certificate maximum of 2 or 3 years. This
proposed rule would eliminate the 2 or 3 year maximum for Federal
certificates, and allow Federal certification to expire at the same
time as the underlying certifying agency certificate. Therefore,
applicators who obtain Federal certification using a State certificate
that expires in the same time as the current Federal maximum, or
shorter time, would not be affected by this proposed rule.
However, the proposed rule would eliminate potential drawbacks to
applicators holding a Federal certificate when the underlying State
certificate is valid for a longer time period than the maximum 2 or 3
years for the EPA Federal certificate. Under the current regulation,
for an applicator certified in such a State to continue a Federal
certification, prior to expiration of their Federal certificate they
would need to complete a new application form and again provide written
evidence of the valid state certification. Federal recertification in
this situation becomes an unnecessary, additional paperwork burden for
both EPA and the applicator with no additional benefits to human health
or the environment since the applicator can reapply for a Federal
certificate using the same underlying certificate with no new
demonstration of competency.
A potential benefit to Federal recertification occurring more
frequently than the State's, is that in checking the current validity
of the applicant's underlying State certificate, EPA may discover that
the issuing State has modified, suspended, or revoked the certificate,
thereby giving EPA the opportunity to deny the recertification
application or modify the new Federal certificate. However, EPA expects
to learn of modifications, suspensions, or revocations of State
certificates independent of the timing of Federal recertification.
Given that EPA would make decisions on modifications, suspensions, or
revocations of Federal certificates independent of recertification,
Federal recertification at a different time from the State
recertification would be of no benefit. Federal recertification at the
same time as the State recertification, as proposed, would be
beneficial in that it would be a recertification based on newly
demonstrated competency. In addition, different expiration dates for
the Federal certificate and the original certificate may cause
unnecessary complication and confusion for applicators and EPA. The
added confusion and paperwork lowers the probability of successful
compliance by the regulated community.
VI. FIFRA Mandated Reviews
In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), EPA submitted a
draft of this proposed rule to the Committee on Agriculture in the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry in the United States Senate, the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and the Secretary of
Agriculture waived review of this proposed rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to allow EPA to use the same expiration date
for the certification it grants, using the expiration date of the valid
certification upon which the EPA certification is based. It does not
otherwise propose to amend or impose any other requirements. The
proposed rule will not otherwise involve any significant policy or
legal issues, and will not increase existing costs. In fact,
synchronizing the expiration dates can reduce burden because some
applicators will have to complete less paperwork by having a reduced
frequency of Federal recertification.
As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined
that this is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose any additional information
collection burden that requires review by OMB under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
information collection activities
[[Page 37048]]
contained in the regulations are already approved under OMB control
number 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.09) and the changes to the
expiration date are not expected to change the covered activities. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for certain EPA
regulations in 40 CFR, in addition to appearing in the Federal
Register, are also listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed
rule does not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed revision that would
synchronize the certification expiration dates for restricted use
applicators is not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on
affected entities, regardless of their size. In general, EPA strives to
minimize potential adverse impacts on small entities when developing
regulations to achieve the environmental and human health protection
goals of the statute and EPA. EPA solicits comments specifically about
potential small business impacts.
State, local, and tribal governments are not regulated by or
affected by this proposed rule, so it is not expected to affect these
governments. Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), EPA has determined that this
action is not subject to the requirements in sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA because it does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector in any 1 year.
In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA
has determined that this proposed rule does not have ``federalism
implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because 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 the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this proposed rule. Nor does it have ``tribal implications'' as
specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 22951, November 9,
2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, which is not the case in
this proposed rule.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require
the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note).
This action does not have an adverse impact on the environmental
and health conditions in low-income and minority communities.
Therefore, this action does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171
Environmental protection, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 14, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136i and 136w.
2. Amend Sec. 171.11 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 171.11 Federal certification of pesticide applicators in States
or on Indian Reservations where there is no approved State or Tribal
certification plan in effect.
* * * * *
(e) Recognition of other certificates. The Administrator may issue
a certificate to an individual possessing any other valid Federal,
State, or Tribal certificate without further demonstration of
competency. The individual shall submit the EPA certification form and
written evidence of valid certification to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The Administrator may deny issuance of such certificate if the
standards of competency for each category or subcategory identified in
the other Federal, State, or Tribal certificate are not sufficiently
comparable to justify waiving further demonstration of competency. The
Administrator may revoke, suspend, or modify such certificate if the
Federal, State, or Tribal certificate upon which it is based is
revoked, suspended, or modified. Unless suspended or revoked, a
certificate issued under this paragraph is valid until the expiration
date of the Federal, State, or Tribal certificate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-15883 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
