Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37045 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

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. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

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); 

• 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 

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 


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: 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– 

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 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 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 

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: 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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, 

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 


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, 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS