Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17607 

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. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by Section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone. 

Dated: March 23, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7467 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0014; FRL–8867–2] 

40 CFR Parts 156 and 170 

Receipt of Request To Require 

Pesticide Products To Be Labeled in 

English and Spanish 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the 

public that the Migrant Clinicians 

Network and other farm worker interest 

groups have petitioned EPA to require 

all pesticide labels be available in both 

English and Spanish. The Agency is 

taking public comment on the request 

before responding to the petitioners. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0014, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

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– 

0014. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

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 Web site 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 http://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 http:// 

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: 

Katie Weyrauch, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308– 

0166; e-mail address: 

weyrauch.katie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general, and may be of interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders including 

human health, farm worker, agricultural 

and environmental advocacy groups; the 

chemical industry; pesticide users; and 

members of the public interested in the 

sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. 

Since others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 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 this 

information 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 

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 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 fully why you agree or 

disagree; suggest alternatives and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

substitute language for your requested 

changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used, as well as the 

sources of those data. 

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. Background 

A. Summary of Petition 

In December 2009, the Agency 

received a letter from the Migrant 

Clinicians Network (MCN), Farmworker 

Justice, and other farm worker advocacy 

organizations requesting that EPA 

require labeling in Spanish, in addition 

to the current requirement for English, 

on pesticide products. While this letter 

focused on farm workers, people in 

several other types of occupations apply 

pesticides or are exposed to pesticides 

routinely, such as lawn and landscape 

maintenance workers, structural pest 

control technicians, and commercial 

and residential cleaning staff. People in 

these occupations and Spanish-speaking 

consumers who use pesticide products 

at home may also be affected by the 

availability of pesticide labels in 

Spanish. The Agency is therefore 

seeking comment on this request as it 

applies to all of these stakeholders. 

Executive Order (EO) 13166 of August 

11, 2000, orders federal agencies to 

improve access to federally conducted 

and federally assisted programs and 

activities for persons who, as a result of 

national origin, are limited in their 

English proficiency (LEP). The EO 

further states that, ‘‘(in) carrying out this 

order, agencies shall ensure that 

stakeholders such as LEP persons and 

their representative organizations, 

recipients, and other appropriate 

individuals or entities, have an adequate 

opportunity to provide input. This input 

from stakeholders will assist the 

agencies in developing an approach to 

ensuring meaningful access by LEP 

persons that is practical and effective, 

fiscally responsible, responsible to the 

particular circumstances of each agency, 

and can be readily implemented.’’ EPA’s 

goals for this Federal Register notice are 

consistent with EO 13166 in that EPA is 

seeking public comment on the request 

for EPA to require that pesticide labels 

be available in English and Spanish. 

Input from the public will inform EPA’s 

decision whether a requirement for 

English and Spanish on pesticide 

products ensures meaningful access by 

LEP persons that meets the objectives of 

this EO. 

EPA is treating this letter as a petition 

and is taking public comment on this 

request. The letter from the petitioners 

and EPA’s response letter are located in 

docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0014 

associated with this Federal Register 

notice located at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The Agency 

would like the public to comment on 

the request for requiring labeling in 

Spanish, including information such as 

potential benefits, possible 

disadvantages, the potential scope of a 

bilingual labeling requirement, and 

costs. Specific questions the Agency 

would like the public to consider and 

respond to on this topic are included 

below in Section II.G. 

B. Current EPA Provisions Relating to 

Pesticide Labeling in Spanish or Other 

Languages 

Several current EPA regulations and 

guidance documents contain provisions 

relevant to the issues raised by the 

petition. As stated in 40 CFR 

156.10(a)(3), ‘‘All required label or 

labeling text shall appear in the English 

language. However, the Agency may 

require or the applicant may propose 

additional text in other languages as is 

considered necessary to protect the 

public. When additional text in another 

language is necessary, all labeling 

requirements will be applied equally to 

both the English and other-language 

versions of the labeling.’’ 

Currently, the Agency allows a 

pesticide registrant to add labeling in 

languages other than English. The Office 

of Pesticide Program’s first statement of 

policy regarding bilingual labeling 

occurred in Pesticide Registration (PR) 

Notice 88–06. PR 88–06 was revised by 

PR 95–2 and PR 98–10. All PR Notices 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

PR_Notices/. PR 98–10 states, ‘‘A 

registrant may provide bilingual 

labeling on any product without 

notification. The foreign text must be a 

true and accurate translation of the 

English text. Note: Both language 

versions of the labeling must appear on 

a container. Foreign text may be used on 

all or part of the labeling.’’ 

For pesticide products subject to the 

agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

(WPS) (40 CFR part 170), EPA requires 

that certain portions of the pesticide 

label contain words or phrases in 

Spanish. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

156.206(e) state: 

Spanish warning statements. If the product 

is classified as toxicity category I or toxicity 

category II according to the criteria in 156.62, 

the signal word shall appear in Spanish in 

addition to English followed by the 

statement, ‘‘Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, 

busque a alguien para que se la explique a 

usted en detalle. (If you do not understand 

the label, find someone to explain it to you 

in detail.)’’ The Spanish signal word 

‘‘PELIGRO’’ shall be used for products in 

toxicity category I, and the Spanish signal 

word ‘‘AVISO’’ shall be used for products in 

toxicity category II. These statements shall 

appear on the label close to the English signal 

word. 

Agricultural handlers are the 

agricultural employees responsible for 

mixing, loading, and applying 

pesticides. EPA requires that before the 

handler performs a handling activity, 

the handler employer ensures that the 

handler has either read the product 

labeling or has been informed, in a 

manner the handler can understand, of 

all labeling requirements related to safe 

use of the pesticide. EPA regulations at 

40 CFR 170.232(a)(1) state: 

The handler employer shall assure that 

before the handler performs any handling 

activity, the handler either has read the 

product labeling or has been informed in a 

manner the handler can understand of all 

labeling requirements related to safe use of 

the pesticide, such as signal words, human 

hazard precautions, personal protective 

equipment requirements, first aid 

instructions, environmental precautions, and 

any additional precautions pertaining to the 

handling activity to be performed. 

These requirements were established 

to better protect agricultural pesticide 

handlers covered by the WPS as they 

mix, load, and apply pesticides. 

C. Languages Spoken in the United 

States and by Agricultural Handlers 

The Agency recognizes that residents 

of the United States speak many 

languages, with a significant proportion 

of the population being Spanishspeakers. A recently published U.S. 

Census Bureau American Community 

Survey report, Language Use in the 

United States: 2007, found that of the 

281 million people in the United States 

aged 5 and over, 55.4 million people 

(20% of this population) spoke a 

language other than English at home. Of 

these 55.4 million people, 62% (34.5 

million) spoke Spanish. For 

comparison, the second most frequently 

spoken language was Chinese, with 2.5 

million speakers, or 4.5% of people who 

speak a language other than English at 

home. Of the 34.5 million people who 

speak Spanish at home, 52.6% reported 

that they speak English ‘‘very well,’’ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17609 

18.3% reported that they speak English 

‘‘well,’’ 18.4% reported that they speak 

English ‘‘not well,’’ and 10.7% reported 

that they speak English ‘‘not at all’’ 

(Shin, Hyon B. and Robert A. Kominski. 

2010. Language Use in the United 

States: 2007, American Community 

Survey Reports, ACS–12. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC). 

Data from the Department of Labor’s 

National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) show that many agricultural 

handlers (agricultural employees 

responsible for mixing, loading, and 

applying pesticides) have limited ability 

to read English. Over a three-year 

period, NAWS surveyors conducted 

nearly 6000 interviews across thirty-one 

states. Sixteen percent of the 

respondents identified themselves as 

‘‘handlers,’’ that is, crop workers who 

had mixed, loaded, or applied 

pesticides in the previous twelve 

months. Fifty-three percent of handlers 

report their dominant language as 

Spanish, and 46% of handlers said that 

their dominant language is English. Of 

the handlers whose dominant language 

was Spanish, 13% reported that they 

read English ‘‘well,’’ 11% reported that 

they read English ‘‘somewhat,’’ 33% 

reported that they read English ‘‘a little,’’ 

and 43% reported that they read English 

‘‘not at all.’’ In contrast, 65% of handlers 

whose dominant language was Spanish 

reported that they read Spanish ‘‘well.’’ 

(National Agricultural Workers Survey, 

public data for 1989–2009: http:// 

www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm). 

There may be bias in these data, as it has 

been noted that self-reported estimates 

of reading skills may be biased towards 

the high-end, as people often overstate 

their abilities in interviews (Donaldson, 

Stewart I. Understanding Self-Report 

Bias in Organizational Behavior 

Research, Journal of Business and 

Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, Winter 

2002). 

The National Agricultural Workers 

Survey reports that the average highest 

grade of education for all handlers (both 

Spanish and English-speaking) was 

tenth grade. A 1994 study, published in 

the Journal of the American Optometric 

Association, found that an 11th grade 

cognitive reading level is required to 

understand a pesticide label. This 

suggests that although handlers may be 

relatively skilled Spanish readers, they 

may not be able to fully comprehend the 

label material. 

D. Current EPA Initiatives Focused on 

Environmental Justice as It Pertains to 

Spanish Speakers in the United States 

1. Consumer Protection 

People apply pesticides in and around 

their homes to control a variety of pests. 

One type of product used is total release 

foggers, also known as ‘‘bug bombs.’’ 

These pesticide products contain 

aerosol propellants and release their 

contents as a concentrated spray to 

fumigate an area. To ensure adequate 

protection of human health and the 

environment with respect to fogger use, 

EPA is working with stakeholders to 

make improvements to these product 

labels, including the use of plain 

language, the addition of pictograms 

and door hang-tags, and the provision 

that certain label statements appear in 

Spanish as well as English. 

2. Agricultural Worker Protection 

Agricultural workers can be exposed 

to pesticides through their work 

activities. These include farm workers, 

who cultivate and harvest crops treated 

with pesticides, and agricultural 

pesticide handlers, who mix, load and 

apply pesticides to protect crops. The 

WPS provides protections for both 

agricultural workers and handlers. For 

farm workers, who are exposed to 

pesticides through contact with treated 

crops but do not handle pesticides 

directly, the WPS establishes rules that 

agricultural employers must follow to 

minimize risks from pesticide exposure, 

such as those discussed in Section II B. 

E. Activities of Other Regulatory Entities 

The state of California reviews all 

marketed labels as they appear on the 

container, whereas EPA reviews a textonly version of the label that contains 

all approved information but not 

necessarily in the format in which it 

will be presented in the marketplace. 

Some marketed labels include full 

Spanish translations for home garden 

products or antimicrobial products, and 

all agricultural pesticides under the 

purview of the WPS include the 

required WPS Spanish statements 

(40 CFR 156.206(e)). 

In Puerto Rico, restricted use 

pesticides (RUPs) and pesticides 

registered to meet Special Local Needs 

(SLNs) must include labeling in Spanish 

(Puerto Rico Pesticide Act Part II, 

Section 4(D)(6)(a) and Part II Section 

4(G)(3)). The pesticide dealer is required 

to provide the supplemental Spanish 

labeling to the buyer. The following 

portions of the label are required to be 

translated into Spanish: 

1. The precautionary statement, ‘‘Keep 

out of reach of children;’’ 

2. Precautionary statements to prevent 

injury to humans, vertebrate animals, 

useful vegetation, and useful 

invertebrate animals, among others, and 

those statements required by the WPS, 

Endangered Species Act, and other 

statutes; 

3. Directions for use; and 

4. Pesticide use classification. 

In Canada, all pesticide products 

produced or sold domestically require 

labels in both English and French. 

F. Potential Scope of This Initiative 

In considering this petition for 

bilingual labeling, the Agency is 

assessing the potential scope of such a 

requirement. EPA is considering 

whether the proposed bilingual labeling 

would improve safety and what 

potential effects it might have on 

industry and the enforcement 

community. Labels in English and 

Spanish could be required for all, or a 

subset of, pesticide products. Below are 

some potential options for bilingual 

labeling. 

1. Certain types of pesticide products: 

Bilingual labeling could be required for 

agricultural pesticide products, 

consumer pesticide products, fumigant 

products, or some other classification of 

product. 

2. Certain use sites: If it is determined 

that labeling in Spanish would be 

beneficial for a specific use site or 

commodity, products used on that use 

site could be required to have bilingual 

labeling. 

3. Products containing particular 

active ingredients: Another option could 

be to require the products with certain 

active ingredients to have labeling in 

Spanish; therefore, all products 

containing chemical X could require 

bilingual labels. 

4. Products of particular acute toxicity 

categories: Products with more toxic 

acute toxicity categories (Categories I or 

II) could require bilingual labeling. 

5. Either entire labels or portions of 

pesticide product labels could be 

required in English and Spanish. For 

example, the Directions for Use section 

of the product labeling could be 

required to be bilingual, or labeling 

statements dealing with worker 

protection, such as the personal 

protective equipment labeling, could be 

required to be in both Spanish and 

English. Other portions of the label that 

could be required to be in both 

languages include the general labeling 

requirements, the ingredient statement, 

precautionary labeling, environmental 

hazards, physical/chemical hazards, 

labeling claims, and company name and 

address, among others. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The Agency acknowledges that there 

could be disadvantages or unintended 

consequences to a bilingual label 

recommendation or requirement, and 

invites public comment on the petition. 

The State FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Pesticide 

Operations and Management (POM) 

committee submitted a letter to EPA in 

December 2010 outlining several 

concerns the committee has regarding 

the inclusion of labeling in Spanish on 

pesticide products. The December 2010 

SFIREG POM letter is available in the 

docket. EPA is dedicated to working 

with SFIREG and all stakeholders to 

obtain information that will inform a 

decision on the petition for Spanish 

labeling of pesticide products. 

G. Questions for Public Comment 

EPA invites all members of the public 

to post comments on this Notice and the 

petition it addresses. Specifically, EPA 

would like the commenter to address 

the following questions. EPA also 

invites all interested parties to comment 

on any other aspects of this petition’s 

proposal that are not directly addressed 

by a question below. 

For the General Public: 

1. Language characteristics vary by 

culture, region, and other factors. How 

could EPA ensure that Spanish text on 

pesticide product labels would be 

understood by all potential Spanishspeaking users? 

2. Labeling in Spanish could 

potentially be required for all pesticide 

products, for a subset of pesticide 

products, or for a portion of the product 

label as described in section II.F. If the 

Agency concluded that translation of a 

portion or portions of the label were 

appropriate, which portions of the 

pesticide label would it be most 

beneficial to have in Spanish, and why? 

If the Agency were to limit the 

requirement for translation to only 

certain products, which products 

should be considered, and why? (Note: 

Please see the sample label in the docket 

to consider the different sections of a 

pesticide label.) 

3. Are there languages other than 

Spanish and English that EPA should 

consider for inclusion on pesticide 

labels? Which languages? Please explain 

your reasoning for including a language 

other than Spanish or English on 

pesticide labels, and cite documents 

that would further bolster your 

suggestion. 

For People Exposed to Pesticides: 

Farm workers, lawn and landscape 

maintenance workers, structural pest 

control technicians, commercial and 

residential cleaning staff, residential 

users of pesticides, children, pregnant 

or nursing women, older adults, others 

and advocacy groups: 

4. Please describe how having labels 

available in English and Spanish could 

increase or decrease pesticide user 

safety. 

5. How do you currently obtain 

information in Spanish regarding a 

pesticide product? 

6. Please describe how farm workers, 

their families, and others exposed to 

pesticides could benefit from this 

proposal. 

7. Would this proposal affect your 

day-to-day work? If so, how? 

8. Which parts of pesticide labeling, if 

any, would be most valuable to have 

translated into Spanish, and why? 

(Note: Please see the sample label in the 

docket to consider the different sections 

of a pesticide label.) 

9. Would having a Spanish translation 

of labeling be more important for some 

types of products than for others? Please 

describe why this would be so. And if 

so, how should EPA select products that 

would bear bilingual labeling? 

10. What effect would the availability 

of bilingual labeling have on users’ 

understanding of label text? 

11. Would pictograms or other nonlanguage methods of communication be 

beneficial for communication of labeling 

requirements? 

For Industry: 

12. Do you currently sell or distribute 

any pesticides with Spanish labeling 

(other than as required by 40 CFR 

156.206)? If so, why have you decided 

to do so and what effects has the use of 

Spanish labeling had on the marketing 

or safety of using these products? Can 

you quantify or give examples of any 

added costs or benefits that have 

resulted from providing your products’ 

labels in English and Spanish? 

13. What additional economic costs 

and/or benefits would you anticipate 

from having your products’ labels 

available in Spanish as well as English? 

Costs might include translation, 

printing, or packaging. Benefits might 

include improved market penetration or 

improved customer good will. Besides 

any increased monetary costs, would 

there be other obstacles to printing 

bilingual labeling on your pesticide 

products? 

14. How could electronic media be 

used to facilitate distribution of 

bilingual or multilingual labeling? 

15. Apart from bilingual labeling, 

what past and current efforts have you 

made to communicate with customers 

or potential pesticide users who do not 

speak or read English fluently? What 

have you found to be effective or 

ineffective? 

16. If you provide Spanish labeling, 

do you provide it on products nationwide or only in targeted regions? Why? 

17. How could EPA implement the 

petitioners’ proposal or a version of it 

efficiently and equitably? 

18. Please explain whether there are 

any portions of a product’s labeling that 

would not need to appear in both 

languages. 

For the State Pesticide Regulatory 

Community and the Enforcement 

Community: 

19. Are there state or local laws that 

conflict with the proposed bilingual 

labeling? 

20. What potential benefits or 

obstacles would a federal 

recommendation or requirement for 

bilingual labeling pose to the state 

regulation of pesticide products? 

21. What potential benefits would 

bilingual labeling provide and what 

potential costs or obstacles would 

bilingual labeling pose to enforcement 

activities? 

22. Do you know of any inspection or 

enforcement actions involving 

bilingually labeled products where the 

existence of two languages on the label 

has compromised bringing the action to 

closure? 

23. Do you know of any enforcement 

actions that have been taken because of, 

or compromised by, inaccuracies in 

labeling translation? 

24. Do you know of misuse incidents, 

poisonings, or other mishaps for which 

the lack of availability of bilingual 

labels may have been a contributing 

factor? 

25. Would a requirement that 

pesticides bear bilingual labeling 

increase or decrease the ability of 

people to use pesticides safely and 

effectively? Why? 

26. If pesticide products are required 

to carry labeling in Spanish, what 

effects, if any, would you anticipate on 

state pesticide applicator certification 

programs? 

List of Subjects 

Environmental justice, environmental 

protection. 

Dated: March 17, 2011. 

Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., 

Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6884 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS