Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6821 

VII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Chicago area is attaining the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured 

and certified monitoring data for 2019– 

2021. EPA is proposing to determine 

that upon final approval of Wisconsin’s 

enhanced I/M performance modeling 

analysis as part of the SIP, the Kenosha 

portion will have met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 

proposing to change the legal 

designation of the Kenosha portion of 

the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Wisconsin SIP, the State’s 

maintenance plan for the area. The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

the Kenosha portion in attainment of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS through 2035. EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the newly-established 2030 and 

2035 MVEBs for the Kenosha portion. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 

enhanced I/M performance modeling 

analysis included in Wisconsin’s 

December 3, 2021 submittals, because 

they satisfy the serious enhanced I/M 

requirements for the Kenosha portion. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 they meet the criteria of the 

CAA. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: February 1, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02425 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 171 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0831; FRL–9134.1– 

01–OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AL01 

Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Further Extension to 

Expiration Date of Certification Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to extend the 

deadline by which Federal, State, 

territory, and tribal certifying authorities 

with existing certification plans are 

required to revise their existing 

certification plans to conform with the 

updated Federal standards for the 

certification of applicators of restricted 

use pesticides (RUPs) up to but not 

longer than November 4, 2024. Federal, 

State, territory, and tribal certifying 

authorities with existing certification 

plans are required to revise their 

existing certification plans to conform 

with the updated Federal standards for 

the certification of applicators of RUPs 

and the regulations established the 

deadline by which the existing plans are 

set to expire unless the revised plans are 

approved by the Agency. EPA is 

proposing this extension to allow 

additional time for proposed 

certification plan modifications to 

continue being reviewed and approved 

by EPA without interruption to Federal, 

State, territory, and tribal certification 

programs or to those who are certified 

to use RUPs under those programs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0831, 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6822 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting or visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 566–2376; email address: 

schroeder.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a Federal, State, 

territory, or tribal agency who 

administers a certification program for 

pesticides applicators. You many also 

be potentially affected by this action if 

you are: A registrant of RUP products; 

a person who applies RUPs, including 

those under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator; a person who relies 

upon the availability of RUPs; someone 

who hires a certified applicator to apply 

an RUP; a pesticide safety educator; or 

other person who provides pesticide 

safety training for pesticide applicator 

certification or recertification. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Agricultural Establishments (Crop 

Production) (NAICS code 111); 

• Nursery and Tree Production 

(NAICS code 111421); 

• Agricultural Pest Control and 

Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS 

code 115112); 

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 

115112, 541690, 541712); 

• Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control 

(Livestock Spraying) (NAICS code 

115210); 

• Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 

115310); 

• Wood Preservation Pest Control 

(NAICS code 321114); 

• Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 

325320); 

• Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 

424690, 424910, 444220); 

• Industrial, Institutional, Structural 

& Health Related Pest Control (NAICS 

code 561710); 

• Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way 

Pest Control (NAICS code 561730); 

• Environmental Protection Program 

Administrators (NAICS code 924110); 

and 

• Governmental Pest Control 

Programs (NAICS code 926140). 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136–136y, particularly 

sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

This action proposes to extend the 

expiration date for existing certification 

plans at 40 CFR 171.5(c) for up to but 

not longer than 2-years. No other 

changes to the certification standards 

and requirements specified in 40 CFR 

part 171 are being proposed in this 

rulemaking. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

Without the proposed deadline 

extension, Federal, State, territory, and 

tribal certification programs will expire 

if their revised certification plans are 

not approved by the recently modified 

regulatory deadline of November 4, 

2022 (Ref. 1). Applicators formerly 

certified under such plans will no 

longer be allowed to use RUPs. While 

EPA anticipates that all plans will have 

been reviewed and returned to the 

certifying authorities for further revision 

by February 2022, the recent extension 

of eight months (which extended the 

original deadline of March 4, 2022 to 

November 4, 2022) may not be sufficient 

time for all certifying authorities to 

respond to EPA comments and complete 

approvable certification plans, or for 

EPA to work closely with the certifying 

authorities to assure that their proposed 

certification plan modifications meet 

current Federal standards. 

EPA expects that some plans will be 

approved in early 2022, with more to 

follow by November 2022. Although 

significant progress has been made in 

the development of revised plans and 

EPA’s subsequent reviews, COVID–19 

resource constraints have impacted the 

time certifying authorities have had to 

respond to EPA’s comments and the 

Agency’s ability to work with certifying 

authorities to assure that their plans are 

approvable by the regulatory deadline. 

Further collaboration may still be 

needed between EPA and the certifying 

authorities to finalize and approve all 

plans. EPA intends to work 

expeditiously toward approving and 

supporting the implementation of plans 

that meet the current Federal standards 

during the extension and intends to 

provide periodic notifications to the 

public when those approvals have 

occurred. No other changes to the 

certification standards and requirements 

specified in 40 CFR part 171 are being 

made in this rulemaking. 

EPA finds that an additional 

extension of the deadline will likely be 

needed to assure that certified 

applicators in some parts of the country 

will continue to be authorized to use 

RUPs without interruption and to 

provide certifying authorities with 

adequate time to review and respond to 

EPA comments on their plans. The 

proposed extension will also provide 

additional time that was initially lost 

due to COVID–19 for EPA to work more 

closely with the certifying authorities to 

address any remaining feedback and 

work toward approving their 

certification plans. 

E. What are the incremental impacts of 

this action? 

Incremental impacts of the proposed 

extension of the regulatory deadline are 

generally positive because the extension 

provides certifying entities and EPA 

with more time to ensure that modified 

plans meeting the minimum Federal 

requirements are in place, while failure 

to extend the regulatory deadline would 

likely have significant adverse impacts 

on the certifying authorities, the 

economy, public health, and the 

environment (see discussion in Unit 

III.B.). 

EPA uses information from the 2017 

certification rule (Ref. 2), which 

mandates the expiration of existing 

certification plans unless EPA approves 

revised certification plans, to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed rule to extend the recently 

modified deadline of November 4, 2022 

(Ref. 1), up to November 4, 2024. The 

impacts of the proposed extension are 

that the implementation costs borne by 

the certifying authorities will be 

expended over an additional period of 

time and some of the costs to 

commercial and private applicators may 

be delayed. Some of the benefits of the 

rule (e.g., reduction in acute illnesses 

from pesticide poisoning) are foregone 

as the implementation of some plans 

may be delayed while EPA works with 

the certifying authorities toward 

approval of their revised certification 

plans. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6823 

1. Cost to certifying authorities. The 

2017 rule provided a compliance period 

for certifying authorities to develop, 

obtain approval, and implement any 

new procedures, regulations, or statutes 

to meet the new Federal standards. The 

2017 rule further provided that existing 

plans could remain in effect after March 

4, 2022, which was recently extended to 

November 4, 2022 (Ref. 1), only to the 

extent specified in EPA’s approval of a 

modified certification plan; EPA did not 

explicitly set a date for full 

implementation of the new programs. 

Certifying authorities can begin 

implementing their revisions to their 

programs when they are approved by 

EPA; portions of revised certification 

programs may be implemented in 

advance of plan approvals when in 

compliance with the 2017 rule 

requirements. All certifying authorities 

submitted their draft revised 

certification plans to EPA by the March 

2020 deadline and the draft plans are 

undergoing review at EPA. Shortly after 

the March 2020 deadline, the COVID–19 

public health emergency disrupted the 

expected schedule of the EPA’s review 

and approval of the draft plans. EPA 

and certifying authorities could not put 

the amount of effort into this part of the 

rule implementation that was originally 

anticipated, as they had to divert their 

resources to address pandemic-related 

issues. Thus, only part of the cost to 

certifying authorities estimated in the 

2017 rule has presently been incurred 

and some of the cost will be expended 

during the additional extension period. 

Therefore, this proposed rule is not 

expected to significantly change the 

costs to certifying authorities estimated 

in the 2017 Economic Analysis (EA) 

(Ref. 3). 

2. Cost to certified applicators. The 

other sectors affected by the 2017 rule 

(e.g., commercial and private 

applicators) do not incur any costs until 

revised certification plans take effect. 

Once the revised plans take effect, the 

2017 EA estimated that commercial 

applicators and private applicators 

would incur annualized costs of $16.2 

million and $8.6 million, respectively, 

to meet the new certification standards. 

Some of these costs could be delayed as 

some of the revised plans are approved 

and implemented over a longer period 

of time. Not all costs to certified 

applicators will be delayed, as EPA 

expects that some plans will be 

approved in early 2022, with more to 

follow by November 2022. Moreover, 

some certifying authorities have or will 

be able to start implementing changes 

conforming to the 2017 rule before their 

plan’s approval. 

3. Potentially delayed benefits of the 

2017 rule. The delay in the approval of 

revised certification plans may also 

delay some benefits that would have 

otherwise accrued if certification plans 

were approved and implemented by the 

deadline established in the 2017 rule, as 

assessed in the 2017 EA. In 2017, EPA 

estimated that implementing the new 

Federal certification requirements 

would reduce acute illness caused by 

exposure to RUPs, based on an analysis 

of pesticide incidents assuming that 

about 20% of poisonings are reported (a 

plausible estimate based on the 

available literature regarding 

occupational injuries or chemical 

poisoning incidents). Incidents may 

result in harms to applicators, persons 

in the vicinity, and the environment. 

Reported incidents most commonly cite 

exposure to the applicator or 

farmworkers in adjacent areas. Based on 

avoided medical costs and lost wages, 

the annualized benefits of the rule were 

estimated to be between $51.1 and $94.4 

million. In addition, EPA expected that 

improved training would also reduce 

chronic illness among applicators from 

repeated RUP exposure and would 

benefit the public from better 

protections from RUP exposure when 

occupying treated buildings or outdoor 

spaces, consuming treated food 

products, and reducing the impact on 

non-target plants and animals. To the 

extent that this rule delays 

implementation of the 2017 rule, it will 

delay accrual of some of those benefits. 

Not all the benefits of certification 

plan revisions will be delayed for a 

period of time up to November 4, 2024, 

however, since some programs have 

been or will be able to start 

implementing changes sooner. 

Certifying authorities can begin 

implementing their revisions to their 

programs as soon as they are approved 

by EPA. Plan approvals are anticipated 

to begin in early 2022 and will continue 

on a rolling basis through the recently 

extended November 2022 date while 

this action goes through standard 

rulemaking procedures. In some 

jurisdictions, portions of revised 

certification programs are presently 

being implemented and in compliance 

with or exceeding the 2017 rule 

requirements, such as imposing 

minimum age requirements and 

updating manuals and exam 

administration procedures, so some 

benefits are already being realized in 

advance of full plan approvals. 

Additionally, some certifying 

authorities were forced to make changes 

to their existing certification programs 

to accommodate COVID–19 protocols, 

all of which were required to meet or 

exceed the new requirements and 

standards established in the 2017 rule. 

Without the extension, however, 

benefits of the 2017 rule would not be 

fully realized. The impact of plans 

expiring absent EPA’s approval of 

modified plans has far-reaching 

implications across many business 

sectors, including but not limited to the 

agricultural sector, importation and 

exportation business, and structural pest 

control (e.g., termite control), and could 

potentially impact all communities and 

populations throughout the U.S. in 

various ways as discussed in Unit I.E.4. 

In addition to the potential delay of 

benefits that would result from this 

extension, EPA and certifying 

authorities have already invested 

significant resources in the preparation 

and review of plan modification that 

would fully implement the 2017 rule. It 

is EPA’s considered judgement that the 

sunk cost of these investments, taken 

together with the significant costs of not 

extending the deadline as discussed in 

Unit I.E.4., outweigh the delayed 

benefits. EPA will continue to work 

expeditiously with certifying authorities 

to review and approve plans on a rolling 

basis. EPA’s ongoing collaboration with 

the certifying authorities, which was 

significantly impacted by the COVID–19 

pandemic, will result in modified plans 

that are protective of the environment 

and human health, including the health 

of certified pesticide applicators and 

those under their direct supervision, 

and will ensure that certified 

applicators are trained to prevent 

bystander and worker exposures as 

contemplated in the 2017 rule. 

4. Costs of not extending the deadline. 

If the existing regulatory deadline is not 

extended further, it is likely that EPA 

will be unable to approve some of the 

State, territory, tribal, and other Federal 

agency certification plans that may still 

need additional work and/or 

coordination beyond the recently 

revised November 4, 2022 deadline, 

resulting in termination of these plans. 

EPA would have to take responsibility 

for administering certification programs 

for a portion of the country. A gap in 

coverage will likely exist between when 

certification plans expire and when EPA 

can fully implement EPA-administered 

certification programs, resulting in 

RUPs being unavailable for use in many 

places during the 2023 growing season 

and potentially through the end of 2023 

or longer. It is also unlikely that EPA’s 

certification programs would offer the 

same availability and convenience as 

those offered by State, territorial, and 

tribal certifying authorities, so some 

applicators could face higher costs or be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6824 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

unable to obtain certification to apply 

RUPs. Once the EPA-administered 

certification plans are in place, they 

may in some cases be less protective 

than State plans would be, as many 

State plans include requirements that 

are more protective than the EPA 

minimum requirements and these 

benefits will be lost if the deadline is 

not extended, and EPA takes over parts 

of the country’s certification programs. 

Furthermore, the expiration of 

certification plans could lead to 

confusion and potential enforcement 

issues when certifications that were 

formerly valid suddenly expire. It is also 

unlikely that EPA’s certification 

programs could offer the depth of 

specialization found in many State, 

territorial and tribal certifying programs, 

which may be tailored to the particular 

pest control and human health needs 

commonly found in these localities. 

Thus, applicators certified under EPA 

programs would only be assessed for 

competency at the minimum Federal 

standards and may not receive the 

specialized training that State, 

territorial, and tribal certifying 

authorities often provide. In addition, 

many States require professional 

applicators to be trained and licensed to 

apply general use pesticides and it is 

unclear to what extent States would be 

able to support those programs if they 

were to lose authority to certify RUP 

applicators. 

Additionally, EPA would be 

compelled to expend time and resources 

in establishing the infrastructure to 

administer these certification programs, 

which would further delay coordination 

with certifying authorities whose plans 

were either approved and would be in 

the process of being implemented or are 

awaiting approval. This is likely to 

cause significant disruption for 

agricultural, commercial, and 

governmental users of RUPs, and could 

have consequences for pest control in a 

broad variety of areas, including but not 

limited to the control of public health 

pests (e.g., mosquito control programs), 

pests that impact agriculture and 

livestock operations, structural pests 

(e.g., termite control), pests that threaten 

State and national forests, and pests in 

containerized cargo. Applicators who 

use RUPs could lose work and income 

as a result. 

F. Request for Comments 

While EPA expects a significant 

amount of progress to be made leading 

up to the recently revised expiration 

date of November 4, 2022, EPA 

anticipates that additional time may be 

needed for some certifying authorities to 

revise their plans based on EPA’s 

feedback and for EPA to approve those 

plans. This proposed rule provides an 

opportunity for stakeholders to submit 

comments on an additional extension to 

the expiration date for existing plans, 

and to include in their comments 

specific information detailing the 

necessity for or concerns over such an 

extension. EPA is proposing an 

extension up to but not longer than 

November 4, 2024, but the Agency is 

interested in receiving information on 

the appropriate length of time to 

approve revised certification plans. 

During this comment period, EPA 

expects that certifying authorities and 

other interested stakeholders will be 

able to provide more information on the 

efforts, issues, and concerns within each 

certifying authority’s jurisdiction, the 

potential impacts of delayed 

certification plans, and the 

consequences of existing plans expiring 

without a new certification plan in 

effect. Any comments submitted in 

response to the interim final rule that 

previously extended the deadline (Ref. 

1) will also be considered in the 

development of this rulemaking. 

G. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. Background 

On December 20, 2021, EPA issued an 

interim final rule that extended the 

original expiration date from March 4, 

2022 to November 4, 2022 (Ref. 1). Unit 

II. of the interim final rule’s preamble 

provides a summary of the 2017 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

final rule and related background, as 

well as a robust discussion of the 

various circumstances that prompted 

the extension and the rationale the 

Agency cited for issuing the interim 

final rule. 

The interim final rule extended the 

expiration date an additional 8 months 

beyond the original regulatory deadline 

of March 4, 2022. This time-limited 

extension was intended to give all 

certifying authorities additional time to 

respond to reviews and feedback 

provided by EPA that had been delayed 

and impacted by the COVID–19 public 

health emergency. All of the plans are 

expected to have been returned to the 

certifying authorities by February 2022. 

The extension also provided more time 

for EPA and certifying authorities to 

work together to address any remaining 

issues and for EPA to ultimately 

approve the certifying authorities’ plans. 

EPA’s 8-month extension was necessary 

to provide EPA with sufficient time to 

make as much progress toward 

approving modified certification plans 

while the Agency simultaneously 

developed rulemaking for public 

comment on the need for and 

appropriate length of a longer extension, 

taking into account both APA and 

FIFRA rulemaking requirements. The 

additional 8 months also provides EPA 

with an opportunity to assess the status 

of plan approvals once all plans have 

been returned to the certifying 

authorities in February 2022 up to the 

revised expiration date of November 4, 

2022. The existing certifications plans 

are set to expire on November 4, 2022, 

unless the modified plans are approved 

by EPA and the approved plans specify 

the time needed to fully implement the 

revisions identified, or alternatively, if 

EPA issues another extension based on 

the need and results of the public 

comment period for this rulemaking. 

III. Provisions of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed New Deadline for 

Certification Plan Approvals 

EPA is proposing that the deadline for 

amended certification plans to be 

approved without interruption to the 

existing certification plans, as provided 

in 40 CFR 171.5(c), be changed up to but 

not longer than November 4, 2024. 

Additional time is likely necessary to 

assure that all the certifying authorities 

have had enough time to present 

approvable certification plans, and for 

EPA to work more closely with the 

Federal, State, territory, and tribal 

agencies on necessary modifications, 

and ultimately approve the certification 

plans. As some certifying authorities are 

close to completing their revisions and 

receiving EPA approval on their plans, 

EPA anticipates that certification plan 

approvals will begin in early 2022 and 

will continue on a rolling basis through 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6825 

the recently extended November 2022 

date while this action goes through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

procedures. EPA anticipates that notice 

of certification plan approvals will be 

periodically provided to the public in 

batched notices in the Federal Register 

and on EPA’s website as they are 

approved. However, EPA is proposing 

this additional extension up to but not 

longer than November 4, 2024, because 

some certifying authorities and EPA 

may need more time to collaborate on 

and address issues raised during EPA’s 

review of the plans. 

B. Need for Extending the Existing 

Plans’ Expiration Date 

An extension of the expiration date 

for existing certification plans is likely 

needed to ensure that Federal, State, 

territory, and tribal agencies have 

sufficient time to revise their 

certification plans in response to EPA’s 

feedback on their draft certification 

plans. On December 20, 2021, EPA 

issued an interim final rule that 

extended the original expiration date of 

existing plans from March 4, 2022, to 

November 4, 2022 (Ref. 1). However, 

absent an additional extension of this 

deadline, State, territory, tribal, and 

other Federal agency certification 

programs without an approved revised 

plan could terminate, causing severe 

disruption for agricultural, commercial, 

and governmental users of RUPs. 

While Unit II. of the preamble in the 

interim final rule (Ref. 1) included a 

robust discussion of the circumstances 

necessitating the extension of the 

expiration date of existing plans from 

March 2022 to November 2022, there 

may not be sufficient time to ensure that 

all modified plans submitted to EPA are 

able to obtain approval prior to the 

expiration of existing plans (Ref. 1). 

EPA’s process for approving modified 

plans involves extensive coordination 

between certifying authorities, EPA 

regional offices, and EPA Headquarters. 

Many of the States, territories, and tribes 

that have submitted modified plans for 

EPA approval are required to make 

statutory and regulatory changes that 

often involve a long and complex 

legislative process and public comment 

procedures. Many of these plans also 

contain State, territory, or tribal-specific 

issues that require individualized 

attention and coordination with EPA. 

Further, many certifying authorities 

have proposed implementation 

timelines that account for changes in the 

infrastructure of existing certification 

programs, such as revisions to current 

RUP applicator certification exam 

standards and training manuals. As 

explained in the interim final rule, the 

COVID–19 public health emergency 

delayed or impeded the process of 

EPA’s coordination with certifying 

authorities on these changes, thereby 

necessitating an extension of the 

deadline for expiration of existing plans 

(Ref. 1). Failure to extend the regulatory 

deadline to provide enough time for 

certifying authorities to respond to 

EPA’s feedback and for EPA to approve 

those revisions would result in the 

expiration of certification programs 

without approved plans, which would 

significantly limit access to certification 

and would thereby limit access to RUPs 

that are necessary for various industries 

that rely upon pest control. 

If EPA is unable to further extend the 

regulatory deadline for approved 

certification plans as needed, any 

existing certification plans that remain 

in effect pending EPA’s approval of 

submitted certification plan 

modifications will expire on November 

4, 2022, in which case 7 U.S.C. 136i(a) 

requires that EPA provide RUP 

applicator certification programs in 

States (including territories) where a 

State certification plan is not approved. 

If EPA were to take on the burden of 

administering certification programs for 

parts of the country, it would draw 

resources away from other important 

Agency priorities, including 

implementation support of certification 

plans that are approved before the 

November 4, 2022 deadline. In addition, 

it would take significant time and 

resources to set up the infrastructure for 

such Federal certification programs and 

to train, test, and certify applicators, 

which would likely result in RUP use 

being curtailed in affected parts of the 

country. Moreover, once EPAadministered certification programs are 

established, it is unlikely that they 

would operate at the same capacity as 

existing programs, but rather, would 

provide fewer and less localized 

opportunities for applicators to satisfy 

certification requirements. As a result, 

significant adverse effects are expected 

on the pest control industry if current 

plans expire, as existing certifications 

will no longer be valid and will need to 

be replaced with Federal certifications. 

This could create economic and public 

health ramifications in a wide range of 

sectors such as agricultural commodity 

production, public health pest control, 

and industrial, institutional, and 

structural pest control. For agriculture, 

it is unlikely that EPA would be able to 

establish these Federal certification 

programs before the start of the 2023 

growing season, which would have 

potentially devastating impacts on the 

agricultural sector in parts of the 

country. RUP access in this scenario 

would be minimal for most, if not all, 

of the 2023 growing season, and 

significant disruptions could extend 

even further. 

IV. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Extension to Expiration 

Date of Certification Plans; Interim Final 

Rule. Federal Register. 86 FR 71831, 

December 20, 2021 (FRL 9134–02– 

OCSPP). 

2. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. 82 FR 952, January 4, 2017 

(FRL–9956–70). 

3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final 

Amendments to 40 CFR part 171: 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

[RIN 2070–AJ20]. December 6, 2016. 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPP–2011– 

0183–0807. 

4. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Further Extension to 

Expiration Date of Certification Plans; 

Submission to the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Federal Register. 87 FR 

3738, January 25, 2022 (FRL–9134.1–02– 

OCSPP). 

V. FIFRA Review Requirements 

In accordance with FIFRA section 

25(a), EPA submitted a draft of this 

proposed rule to the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Ref. 

4) and to the appropriate Congressional 

Committees. 

USDA responded without comments. 

The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel 

(SAP) waived review of this proposed 

rule, concluding that the proposed rule 

does not contain issues that warrant 

scientific review by the SAP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 (58 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6826 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been reflected in 

the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection activities or 

burden subject to OMB review and 

approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

activities contained in the existing 

regulations and associated burden under 

OMB Control Numbers 2070–0029 (EPA 

ICR No. 0155) and 2070–0196 (EPA ICR 

No. 2499). An agency may not conduct 

or sponsor, and a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under PRA, 

unless it has been approved by OMB 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 

of the CFR, after appearing in the 

Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, and included on the related 

collection instrument or form, if 

applicable. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In 

making this determination, EPA 

concludes that the impact of concern for 

this rule is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities. This 

rulemaking primarily affects Federal, 

State, territory, and tribal agencies who 

administer a certification program for 

pesticides applicators, which do not 

qualify as small entities under the RFA. 

In addition, this rulemaking may 

potentially affect other entities that may 

qualify as a small entity under the RFA, 

e.g., companies that are registrants of 

RUP products; a person who applies 

RUPs, including those under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator; a 

person who relies upon the availability 

of RUPs; someone who hires a certified 

applicator to apply an RUP; a pesticide 

safety educator; or other persons who 

provides pesticide safety training for 

pesticide applicator certification or 

recertification. 

The Agency is certifying that this 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

rule would relieve regulatory burden for 

potentially affected small entities. 

Without the proposed deadline 

extension, modified certification 

programs that are not approved by the 

recently modified regulatory deadline of 

November 4, 2022, will expire, and 

applicators formerly certified under 

such plans will no longer be allowed to 

use RUPs. This action proposes to 

extend the expiration date for existing 

certification plans to allow more time 

for certifying authorities to respond to 

EPA comments and for EPA to work 

with the certifying authorities to assure 

that their proposed certification plan 

modifications meet current Federal 

standards. EPA has therefore concluded 

that this action would relieve regulatory 

burden for all directly regulated small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy and has not 

otherwise been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. As such, NTTAA section 

12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not 

apply to this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14008: Tackling the Climate 

Crisis at Home and Abroad 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, 

January 27, 2021), EPA finds that this 

action will not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health, environmental, climaterelated, or other cumulative impacts on 

disadvantaged communities, as well as 

the accompanying economic challenges 

of such impacts during this 

administrative action to extend the 

expiration date. This extension will 

provide EPA and the certifying 

authorities an opportunity to finalize 

the revised certification plans, ensuring 

that the increased protections identified 

in the 2017 rule are realized for all 

affected populations. EPA will continue 

to work expeditiously with certification 

authorities to review and approve plans 

on a rolling basis. This engagement, 

which was impacted by the COVID–19 

public health emergency, will ensure 

the modified plans are appropriately 

protective of certified pesticide 

applicators and those under their direct 

supervision, and will ensure that 

certified applicators are trained to 

prevent bystander and worker 

exposures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171 

Environmental protection, Applicator 

competency, Agricultural worker safety, 

Certified applicator, Pesticide safety 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6827 

training, Pesticide worker safety, 

Pesticides and pests, Restricted use 

pesticides. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR chapter I as follows: 

PART 171—CERTIFICATION OF 

PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 171 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. 

§ 171.5 Effective Date. 

■ 2. Amend § 171.5 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

(c) Extension of an existing plan 

during EPA review of proposed 

revisions. If by March 4, 2020, a 

certifying authority has submitted to 

EPA a proposed modification of its 

certification plan pursuant to subpart D 

of this part, its certification plan 

approved by EPA before March 6, 2017 

will remain in effect until EPA has 

approved or rejected the modified plan 

pursuant to § 171.309(a)(4) or November 

4, 2024, whichever is earlier, except as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this section 

and § 171.309(b). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–02543 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 8 

[CG Docket No. 22–2; FCC 22–7; FR ID 

69891] 

Empowering Broadband Consumers 

Through Transparency 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes measures to 

implement certain provisions of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Infrastructure Act). Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to require that 

broadband internet access service 

providers (ISPs) display, at the point of 

sale, labels to disclose to consumers 

certain information about prices, 

introductory rates, data allowances, 

broadband speeds, and management 

practices, among other things. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 9, 2022, and reply comments are 

due on or before March 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket No. 22–2, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

In the event that the Commission 

announces the lifting of COVID–19 

restrictions, a filing window will be 

opened at the Commission’s office 

located at 9050 Junction Drive, 

Annapolis, MD 20701. See FCC 

Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica H. McMahon of the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0346 or Erica.McMahon@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in CG 

Docket No. 22–2, FCC 22–7, adopted 

and released on January 27, 2022. The 

full text of the document is available for 

public inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice). 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 

1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substances of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The NPRM proposes rule amendments 

that may result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on the requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission seeks comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. Public Law 107–198; 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. In 2021, Congress enacted and the 

President signed the Infrastructure Act, 

which, in relevant part, directs the 

Commission ‘‘[n]ot later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of th[e] Act, 

to promulgate regulations to require the 

display of broadband consumer labels, 

as described in the Public Notice of the 

Commission issued on April 4, 2016 

(DA 16–357), to disclose to consumers 

information regarding broadband 

internet access service plans.’’ See 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, 

section 60504(a) (2021) (Infrastructure 

Act). Further, the Infrastructure Act 

requires that any broadband consumer 

label adopted by the Commission ‘‘shall 

include information regarding whether 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1