[Federal Register: January 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 707]
[DOCID:fr07ja09-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-436-000]

Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Informal Settlement
Conference

December 31, 2008.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened
in this proceeding commencing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 8, 2009,
at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 for the purpose of exploring the
possible settlement of the above-referenced dockets.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For additional information, please contact Marc Gary Denkinger,
(202) 502-8662<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lorna Hadlock, (202) 502-
8737<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-49 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37618-37621]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0189; FRL-8427-3]

S-Abscisic Acid; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide S-
Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-
enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid in or on leafy vegetables,
herbs and spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples when
applied/used as a plant regulator in accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) 73049-EUP-7. Valent BioSciences
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-
trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid
for the uses permitted under EUP 73049-EUP-7. The temporary tolerance
exemption expires on August 7, 2012.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 29, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 28, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0189. 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., Confidential Business Information (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 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 Docket
Facility is open 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: Chris Pfeifer, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    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 North American Industrial Classification System (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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0189 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 28, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0189, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15969) (FRL-8407-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 9G7532) by Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870 Technology
Way, Libertyville, IL 60048. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-
hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-
(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid in or on leafy vegetables, herbs and spices, pome
fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples. This notice included a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Valent BioSciences
Corporation, which is included in the docket for this rule. In that
summary, Valent BioSciences Corporation requested an expansion of the
temporary exemption of a requirement for tolerance for S-Abscisic Acid
(commonly abbreviated as ABA) to extend to leafy vegetables, herbs and
spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples pursuant to the
issuance of EPA EUP Number 73049-EUP-7. This EUP is designed to test
ABA for its ability to aid in fruit thinning, growth control, crop
stress reduction and crop quality improvement, and proposes a maximum
rate of 2,000 parts per million (ppm) per acre to be applied up to four
times annually. The EUP proposes to study ABA over 3 years (until
August 7, 2012) and would cover a sum total of 6,913 acres. There were
no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe '' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that
the Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    S-Abscisic Acid is a plant regulator present in all vascular
plants, algae and some fungi. Its name derives from its purported role
in abscission - the shedding of leaves, fruits, flowers and seeds. As a
plant hormone, S-Abscisic Acid is known to be a strong actor in
regulating plant growth by aiding in stress resistance, fruit set,
ripening, and senescence. It is naturally present in fruits and
vegetables at various levels, generally not in excess of 10 ppm, and
has always been a component of any diet containing plant materials. To
date, no toxic effects to humans have been associated with the
consumption of ABA in fruits and vegetables.
    S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-
2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid is virtually non-toxic with
regard to acute toxicity. The lethal dose (LD)50 for acute
oral toxicity using the rat was greater than 5,000 milligrams/kilogram
(mg/kg) of body weight in female rats, so it is classified as a
Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity. The LD50 for
acute dermal toxicity using the rat was greater than 5,000 mg/kg body
weight in male and female rats, so it is classified as a Toxicity
Category IV for acute dermal toxicity. The lethal concentration
(LC)50 for acute inhalation toxicity was greater than 2.06
mg/liter (L) in male and female rats, so it is classified as a Toxicity
Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity. Primary eye irritation,
tested in rabbits, showed mild irritation to the eye (Toxicity Category
III). Iritis and conjunctivitis cleared after 24 hours. Primary skin
irritation, tested in the rabbit, showed this material to be slightly
irritating. This irritation cleared within 24 hours after treatment.
ABA was tested for Sensitization in the Guinea Pig and found not to be
a skin sensitizer.
    1. Genotoxicity. Three mutagenicity studies (an Ames test, a mouse
micronucleus assay, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in the rat)
determined that ABA was not mutagenic.
    2. Developmental toxicity and Subchronic toxicity. The Agency does
not believe that there is any development toxicity or subchronic
toxicity concern associated with ABA for several reasons. Public
literature indicates that there are no grounds for concern with regard
to the developmental toxicity or subchronic toxicity of ABA. Because of
the extremely short half-life and dissipation qualities of ABA, the
Agency expects treated food to return to background levels within 5
days of application; therefore, there is a lack of potential oral
exposure. Moreover, ABA is virtually non-toxic through the oral route
of exposure. Finally, because of the pre-existing ubiquity of ABA in
our diet without issue, developmental toxicity and subchronic toxicity
are not considered to be of concern.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information

concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other
non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water
or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns,
or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    ABA is a plant regulator present in all vascular plants, algae and
some fungi. It is naturally present in fruits and vegetables at various
levels, generally not in excess of 10 ppm, and has always been a
component of any diet containing plant materials. Because of the rapid
degradation of ABA, the proposed uses of this product are not expected
to result in dietary residues in or on leafy vegetables, herbs and
spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples, above the
natural background levels.
    1. Food. Residues of ABA applied to leafy vegetables, herbs and
spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples can be expected
to rapidly dissipate to levels consistent with those observed
naturally. Data submitted by the registrant confirm ABA's dissipation
through rapid metabolism, photo-isomerization, and rapid degradation.
Because of its ability to dissipate rapidly, ABA, when used in
accordance with the terms of EUP 73049-EUP-7, is not expected to result
in residues in or on leafy vegetables, herbs and spices, pome fruit,
stone fruit, grapes and pineapples, above the natural background levels
typically found in other commonly consumed fruits or vegetables. As
mentioned above, it is noted that ABA is already commonly consumed. It
is naturally present in fruits and vegetables at various levels (up to
10 ppm) and has always been a component of any diet containing plant
materials.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Pursuant to the terms of EUP 73049-EUP-
7, applications are expected to be made to leafy vegetables, herbs and
spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and pineapples using a maximum
application rate of 2,000 ppm per acre (using a maximum of 200
gallons). Due to the low concentration and volume of application
solution, leaching into groundwater is unlikely. Applications are made
directly to leafy vegetables, herbs and spices, pome fruit, stone
fruit, grapes and pineapples; therefore, accidental application to
lakes or steams is unlikely. However, even if ABA leached into
groundwater, data show that ABA is rapidly metabolized and photo-
isomerized, further diminishing the likelihood of any extra-normal ABA
residues being transferred to water. Data submitted to the Agency show
ABA is also naturally present in water. The Agency therefore concludes
that any residues resulting from the application of ABA to leafy
vegetables, herbs and spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and
pineapples are not expected to result in any significant drinking water
exposure beyond natural background levels of ABA already present in
water.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Potential non-occupational exposure is considered unlikely for this
distinctly agricultural use pattern.
    1. Dermal exposure. Non-occupational dermal exposures to ABA when
used as a pesticide are expected to be negligible because it is limited
to an agricultural use under this EUP.
    2. Inhalation exposure. Non-occupational inhalation exposures to
ABA when used as a pesticide are expected to be negligible because it
is limited to an agricultural use under this EUP.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires the Agency, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, to
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
pesticide residues and ``other substances that have a common mechanism
of toxicity.'' These considerations include the cumulative effects of
such residues on infants and children. Because there is no indication
of mammalian toxicity from ABA, the Agency concludes that ABA does not
share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Therefore,
section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to residues of ABA to the U.S. population. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and other non-occupational exposures for
which there is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this
conclusion based on the relatively low levels of mammalian dietary
toxicity associated with ABA, the natural ubiquity of ABA in our
foodstuffs, and data indicating that the pesticidal use of ABA results
in residues that approximate natural background levels. For these
reasons, the Agency has determined that ABA residues on leafy
vegetables, herbs and spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and
pineapples will be safe, i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of ABA when used
in accordance with the terms of EUP 73049-EUP-7.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless the EPA
determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe
for infants and children. Based on all the reliable available
information the Agency reviewed on ABA, the Agency concludes that there
are no residual uncertainties for prenatal/postnatal toxicity resulting
from ABA and that ABA has relatively low toxicity to mammals from a
dietary standpoint, including infants and children. Accordingly, there
are no threshold effects of concern and an additional margin of safety
is not necessary to protect infants and children.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    Based on available data, no endocrine system-related effects have
been identified with the consumption of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-
hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-
(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    Through this action, the Agency proposes a temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance of ABA when used on leafy vegetables,
herbs and spices, pome fruit, stone fruit, and pineapples without any
numerical limitations for residues. It has determined that residues
resulting from the pesticidal uses of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-
hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-
(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid, would be so low as to be indistinguishable from
natural background levels. As a result, the Agency has concluded that
an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for this
use of ABA.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    There are no Codex Maximum Residue Levels established for residues
of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-
2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance under section 408(d) of

FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 20, 2009.
W. Michael McDavit,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.1281 is revised to read as as follows:

Sec.  180.1281   S-Abscisic Acid; Temporary Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance.

    (a) S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-
cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid is temporarily
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant
regulator in or on grape in accordance with the Experimental Use Permit
73049-EUP-4. This temporary exemption from tolerance will expire
October 1, 2010.
    (b) A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for the residues of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-
2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic
Acid when used as a plant regulator in or on grape, herbs and spices,
leafy vegetables, pineapple, pome fruit, and stone fruit in accordance
with the Experimental Use Permit 73049-EUP-7. This temporary exemption
from tolerance will expire August 7, 2012.

[FR Doc. E9-17839 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14320]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4101-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4101-DR), dated February 13, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of February 13, 2013.

Forrest and Lamar Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G]
(already designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

Marion and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance, including direct
federal assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-04984 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27683-27684]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0997; FRL-9925-62-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Contractor Cumulative Claim and
Reconciliation (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Contractor Cumulative Claim and
Reconciliation (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0246.12, OMB Control No. 2030-
0016) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through May 31, 2015. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 6702) on February 6, 2015
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OARM-2011-0997, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Hubbell, Policy Training and
Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
565-2473; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: All contractors who have completed an EPA cost
reimbursement type contract will be required to submit EPA Form 1900-
10. EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes all costs incurred in performance of
the contract and sets forth the final indirect rates. This form is
reviewed by the contracting officer to determine the final costs
reimbursable to the contractor. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) 52.216-7 states that the Government will pay only the costs
determined to be allowable by the contracting officer in accordance
with FAR 31.2. Furthermore, FAR 52.216-7 states that indirect cost
rates shall be established for each fiscal year at the close of a
contractor's fiscal year. EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes this information
for the entire contract period and provides a basis for cost review by
contracting, finance, and audit personnel. In addition, FAR 4.804-5
mandates that the office administering the contract shall ensure that
the costs and indirect cost rates are settled.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 1900-10.
    Respondents/affected entities: All contractors who have completed
an EPA cost reimbursement type contract.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (FAR 52.216-7).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once, at the end of the contract.
    Total estimated burden: 32 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,500.65 (per year), includes $60 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 48 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This is due to the decreased number of contracts
closed in the past period.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-11657 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Comments on Independent Registered Professional Engineer Changes Proposed in the Burden Reduction Rule and Addressed in the Subsequent NODA.

FROM: Carolyn L. Cunningham TO: Record Comments in Favor of Allowing Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMM) to Make Certifications Many comments supported the proposed Burden Reduction preamble language and are in favor of allowing Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMM) to make certifications under the RCRA program. These comments can be found in the docket for this rule EPA HQ RCRA 1999 0031.

Throughout the RCRA regulations, there are various requirements for the services of an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer to certify the effectiveness of the design and operation of various hazardous waste management units. We proposed to add CHMM as professionals qualified to make these certifications on a number of selected certifications. This proposed change was a result of comments received on our June 18, 1999 NODA ( 64 FR 32859).

In response to this proposal, the Agency received significant comment, primarily requesting that we expand the category of persons allowed to provide the various certifications. Commenters argued that we were being arbitrary in proposing to allow only two professional disciplines ( i. e., CHMM and professional engineers) to certify hazardous waste management operations. Conversely, professional engineers and many States strongly opposed the proposed change in the regulatory requirements. They suggested that CHMM were not qualified to certify the design, construction, and structural integrity of hazardous waste management units.

In addition, numerous States also opposed the change on the grounds that their State laws allow only licensed engineers to make these certifications. State comments also pointed out that State licensing boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence, on the part of professional engineers, and may impose fines and other disciplinary actions such as cease anddesist orders or license revocation. According to commenters, similar controls do not exist for other professions. This personal liability of the professional engineer is one of the reasons why State commenters supported the idea that RCRA certifications should only be done by licensed professional engineers.

We are persuaded by the arguments presented by the States and are not going forward with the proposed change. Comments Against Allowing Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMM) to Make the Certifications.

Other commenters were against the proposed Burden Reduction preamble language that was in favor of allowing Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMM) to make certifications under the RCRA program. These comments can be found in EPA HQ RCRA 1999 0031.

In response to the proposal, the Agency received many comments on this issue, some of which opposed the proposed allowance for CHMMs to perform inspections and certifications that are currently performed by professional engineers. As such, the professional engineers were strongly opposed to the proposal. They suggested that Certified Hazardous Materials Managers are not qualified to certify the design, construction, and structural integrity of hazardous waste management units.

Several states also suggested that the certifications involve the design, installation, and assessment of structures, and that their state laws allow only licensed professional engineers to make these kinds of certification. The state comments also indicated that their licensing boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence, and may impose fines and other disciplinary actions such as cease and desist orders or license revocation. This personal liability of the professional engineer is one of the reasons why the State comments support the concept that RCRA certifications should only be done by state licensed professional engineers or professional geologists.

We are persuaded by the arguments presented by the states and are not going forward with the proposed change. The reader is also referred to the preamble language for this rule as well as the OMB correspondence document that is also a part of the rulemaking docket for additional information.

Comments Regarding Allowing a Certification by the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) to Make the Certifications Commenters also addressed the use of organizations that meet the criteria for assessing certification programs for environmental professionals established by the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM). These comments can be found in EPA HQ RCRA 1999 0031.

Commenters suggested that rather than deciding which professions are qualified to make certifications, we should establish an environmental professional performance standard based on membership in a recognized professional organization. In response to these comments, we solicited comment in our October 29, 2003 NODA to allow professionals accredited by organizations meeting the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) E1929 98, Standard Practice for the Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Engineers : Accreditation Criteria to conduct a limited number of certifications including: ( 1) Section 264.573( a)( 4)( ii),( g) Drip Pads. Design and operating requirements; ( 2) Section 265.443( a)( 4)( ii),( g) Drip Pads. Design and operating requirements; ( 3) Section 264.574( a) Drip Pads. Inspections; ( 4) Section 265.444( a) Drip Pads. Inspections; and ( 5) Section 266.111( e)( 2) Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. Direct transfer equipment  requirements prior to meeting secondary containment requirements.

Comments on the change described in the NODA were mixed. Some commenters supported this change in qualifications for a selected few certifications, while a number of states and professional organizations still strongly opposed allowing anyone other than a professional engineer to perform these certifications. We are persuaded by the arguments presented by the states and are not going forward with this proposed change. The reader is also referred to the preamble discussion for additional information as well as the document in the docket addressing correspondence between OMB and EPA during the final review process.

Comments Regarding Using a Professional Geologist to Make Certifications Numerous commenters supported the idea that a " professional geologist" should be allowed to perform certain RCRA inspections and certifications in cases where professional engineers are currently required to do such activities.

Several commenters stated that in cases where inspections and certifications are required to be performed by professional engineers ( and under the proposed preamble language, Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMM)), it should be allowable for geologists and geoscientists to make such determinations. They believe that disallowing geologists and geoscientists creates a monopoly for engineers ( and, as proposed but not finalized, CHMM) and would reduce or eliminate the opportunity for equally qualified geologists and geoscientists to conduct and manage certain projects under RCRA.

The Agency did not propose to allow geologists and geoscientists to make certain RCRA determinations, thus the issue is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. In fact, in the final rule, we made no changes to the existing requirements that professional engineers must be the ones to do certain RCRA inspections and certifications.

Comments For Retaining the Term " Independent" in the Certification Requirements A number of commenters were in support of the proposed Burden Reduction Preamble language that certain RCRA inspections and certifications be performed by " independent," professional engineers. We solicited comment on eliminating the requirement that the certifier be " independent," reasoning that we could rely on the professional standards of the certifier to ensure accurate certifications. This could potentially save expenses for companies with in house engineers, since they would not have to hire outside consultants. Several commenters strongly argued that the word " independent" should be retained because an independent review and certification avoids any potential of conflict of interest. Commenters stated that an employee of a facility would more likely have a biased approach to review and certification, and that State agencies would have less confidence in the accuracy and quality of review and certification. Furthermore, the commenters argued that the public would have reduced confidence in the accuracy and meaning of the engineering review and certification if it was conducted by an employee of the facility. The public would more likely suspect a conflict of interest and demand a more rigorous review by State agencies.

Commenters also noted that a similar change, regarding whether to retain the term " independent" for professional engineers certifying closure, was proposed by EPA on March 19, 1985 ( 50 FR 11074). After receiving public comment, a final rule was issued on May 2,1986 with the term " independent" retained. In the preamble to the May 2, 1986 final rule, we stated that, because certification of final closure is the final step in the closure process and triggers the release of the owner or operator from financial responsibility requirements for closure and third party liability coverage requirements, we believed that the certification should be made by a person who is least subject to conscious or subconscious pressures to certify to the adequacy of a closure that, in fact, is not in accordance with the approved closure plan. Commenters also noted that in the October 9, 1991 Federal Register, EPA addressed concerns regarding proposed language that would have allowed a " qualified party" to perform closure and post closure certification. In that FR notice, we stated on page 51103:

While Agency agrees with commenters that objective closure and post closure certifications are essential for avoiding any potential conflicts of interest and ensuring protection of human health and the environment and that more specific requirements concerning the qualification of the certifying party are necessary to ensure the adequacy of the certification. We also have been convinced that the objectivity of a PE is inherent in the licensing of the individual by the state. We, therefore, are requiring in this final rule that certifications be obtained from qualified, Professional Engineers. The reader is referred to the preamble discussion in the Burden Reduction rule for additional information on this point.

Comments Against Deleting the Term " Independent" in the Certification Requirements A number of commenters were against requiring that professional engineers making certain RCRA inspections and certifications be " independent." We solicited comment on eliminating the requirement that the certifier be " independent," reasoning that we could rely on the professional standards of the certifier to ensure accurate certifications. This could potentially save expenses for companies with in house engineers, since they would not have to hire outside consultants.

Commenters on this issue stated that all professional engineers, whether employed by the facility be inspected or by an independent firm, are bound by a code of professional responsibility. Furthermore, their competency is reviewed by state engineering licensure boards. Therefore, there should be no presumption that a professional engineer who is an employee rather than an independent consultant is less likely to exercise sound and independent engineering judgment. In addition, commenters argued that it takes a lot of time to hire an independent professional engineer, which adds to the administrative burden.

We also received comments strongly supporting that we retain the requirement that professional engineers be independent, because an independent review and certification avoids any potential of conflict of interest. Commenters stated that an employee of a facility would more likely have a biased approach to review and certification, and that State agencies would have less confidence in the accuracy and quality of review and certification. Furthermore, the commenters argued that the public would have reduced confidence in the accuracy and meaning of the engineering review and certification if it was conducted by an employee of the facility. The public would more likely suspect a conflict of interest and demand a more rigorous review by State agencies.

Upon further analysis, we have decided to delete the independent qualification for certification made by a professional engineer. EPA continues to believe that this proposed modification retains the most important requirements: that the engineer is qualified to perform the task and is a professional engineer( i. e., licensed to practice engineering under the title Professional Engineer.) We believe that a professional engineer regardless of whether he/ she is independent is able to give fair and technical review because of the programs established by the state licensing boards. It is not clear to us that an in house engineer faces a greater economic temptation than an independent engineer seeking to cultivate an ongoing relationship with a client. This is a central mission of state licensing boards. If certifications are provided when the facts to do not warrant certification, the professional engineer is subject to penalties, including the loss of license and the possibility of fines. Furthermore, we are convinced that the change to the certification requirements will allow facilities to reduce burden without compromising environmental safety by using in house expertise. Professional engineers employed by a facility are more familiar with its own particular situation and are in a position to provide more on site review and oversight of the activity being certified.

Preamble Language Providing Justification and Summary of Comments The following text is excerpted from the Burden Reduction preamble and provides additional discussion of the changes we are making to the certification requirements.

Changes to the Professional Engineer Certification Requirements.

Throughout the RCRA regulations, there are various requirements for the services of an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer to certify the effectiveness of the design and operation of various hazardous waste management units. We proposed to add Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( CHMMs) as professionals qualified to make selected certifications. This proposed change was a result of comments received on our June 18, 1999 NODA ( 64 FR 32859). In response to this proposal, the Agency received significant comment, primarily requesting that we expand the category of persons allowed to provide the various certifications. Commenters argued that we were being arbitrary in proposing to allow only two professional disciplines ( i. e., CHMMs and professional engineers) to certify hazardous waste management operations. Conversely, professional engineers strongly opposed the proposed change in the regulatory requirements. They suggested that CHMMs were not qualified to certify the design, construction, and structural integrity of hazardous waste management units.

In addition, numerous states opposed the change on the grounds that their state laws allow only licensed engineers to make these certifications. State comments also pointed out that state licensing boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence, on the part of professional engineers, and may impose fines and other disciplinary actions such as cease anddesist orders or license revocation. According to commenters, similar controls do not exist for 1 After publication of the October 29, 2003 NODA, ( See 68 FR 61662), EPA determined that the certification required by § 266.111( e)( 2) had to be made by August 21, 1992. As such, the Agency is not pursuing a change to this requirement in today's rulemaking, obviously because the date has passed. other professions. This personal liability of the professional engineer is one of the reasons why state commenters supported the idea that RCRA certifications should only be done by licensed professional engineers.

Other commenters suggested that, rather than deciding which professions are qualified to make certifications, we should establish an environmental professional performance standard based on membership in a recognized professional organization. In response to these comments, we solicited comment in our October 29, 2003 NODA to allow professionals accredited by organizations meeting the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) E1929 98, Standard Practice for the Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Engineers : Accreditation Criteria to conduct a limited number of certifications, including: ( 1) Section 264.573( a)( 4)( ii)( g), Drip Pads, Design and operating requirements; ( 2) Section 265.443( a)( 4)( ii)( g), Drip Pads, Design and operating requirements; ( 3) Section 264.574( a), Drip Pads, Inspections; ( 4) Section 265.444( a), Drip Pads, Inspections; and ( 5) Section 266.111( e)( 2), Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Direct transfer equipment  requirements prior to meeting secondary containment requirements. 1 Comments to the change described in the NODA were mixed. Some commenters supported this change in qualifications for selected certifications, while a number of states and professional organizations still strongly opposed allowing anyone other than a professional engineer to perform these certifications. While the Agency believes that added flexibility to the RCRA regulations is a goal worth pursuing, in this case, we are persuaded by the arguments presented by states with regard to these certifications and are not going forward with these changes at this time. Certifications for drip pads involve certifying engineering designs, drawings, plans and other engineering details, involving structural and hydraulic and other functions. As such, we believe that while there may be professionals other than professional engineers qualified to make these certifications, it is imperative that the goals of human health and the environmental protection are maintained. In reviewing the comments, we are not convinced that all environmental professionals certified by the ASTM standard would be qualified to perform these engineering evaluations. To this end, we are not going forward with allowing the changes to the drip pad certification requirements that would allow environmental professionals recognized by a certification program that is compliant with ASTM E 1929 98 Standard Practice for the Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Professionals: Accreditation Criteria.

Although the Agency was not persuaded that ASTM board certified environmental professionals, including CHMMs, should be allowed to make the required RCRA certifications that were the subject of this rulemaking, the Agency wants to make it clear that facilities are still permitted to utilize qualified professionals who may not be professional engineers in performing the analyses that underlie these certifications. Facilities can potentially lower their costs by utilizing the flexibility to employ others as part of the certification requirement. For example, as part of the 2 For example, in the All Appropriate Inquiries ( AAI) rule published on November 1, 2005, ( 70 CFR 66070) EPA sets standards for CERCLA liability protection by establishing criteria that prospective property owners must use in the inquiries they conduct into the previous ownership, uses, and environmental conditions of a property prior to acquiring the property. The AAI rule differs from the RCRA burden reduction rule in that AAI does not in any way require the environmental professional to render any judgment or opinion regarding RCRA or CERCLA compliance or liability. AAI requirements include research activities and a site investigation similar to a Phase I environmental site assessment. It does not include compliance evaluation or an assessment of engineering or technical requirements ( which may inherently require the expertise of an engineer or geologist). closure and post closure requirements, some CHMMs may be qualified to make certain determinations associated with these certifications. to determine whether operations at the site will minimize hazards.

The Agency is sympathetic to the large number of comments by the CHMMs and other environmental professionals about unnecessary restrictions in the marketplace. However, EPA is retaining the professional engineering certification, in part, to allay state concerns about the need to monitor and control the activities of personnel that are now subject to state licensure control. Given, however, additional experience by the Agency with the utilization of other environmental professionals, EPA may re examine this issue in the future. 2 We Are Removing the " Independent" and " Registered" Requirements for Selected Certifications.

Some commenters to the proposed rule suggested that we change the certification requirements by amending the qualifications required for the certification from " independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer" to " qualified professional engineer." That is, the commenters suggested it was not necessary for the professional engineer to be independent or registered. Commenters argued that the term " qualified professional engineer" retains the most important components of the requirement: ( 1) that the engineer be qualified to perform the task; and ( 2) that she or he be a professional engineer ( following a code of ethics and the potential of losing his/ her license for negligence).

In the October 29, 2003 NODA ( 68 FR 61662), EPA also solicited comment on changing the qualifications for who can certify the design, operation and closure of specific hazardous waste management units from " independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer" to " qualified professional engineer." We solicited comment on eliminating the requirement that the certifier be " independent," reasoning that we could rely on the professional standards of the certifier to ensure accurate certifications. This could potentially save expenses for companies with in house engineers, since they would not have to hire outside consultants. State commenters strongly argued that the word " independent" should be retained because an independent review and certification avoids any potential of conflict of interest. Commenters stated that an employee of a facility would more likely have a biased approach to review and certification, and that state agencies would have less confidence in the accuracy and quality of review and certification. Furthermore, the commenters argued that the public would have reduced confidence in the accuracy and meaning of the engineering review and certification if it was conducted by an employee of the facility. The public would more likely suspect a conflict of interest and demand a more rigorous review by state agencies. Commenters also noted that a similar change, regarding whether to retain the term " independent" for professional engineers certifying closure, was proposed by EPA on March 19, 1985 ( 50 FR 11074). After receiving public comment, a final rule was issued on May 2,1986 with the term " independent" retained. In the preamble to the May 2, 1986 final rule, we stated that, because certification of final closure is the final step in the closure process and triggers the release of the owner or operator from financial responsibility requirements for closure and third party liability coverage requirements, we believed that the certification should be made by a person who is least subject to pressures to certify to the adequacy of a closure that, in fact, is not in accordance with the approved closure plan. Commenters also noted that in the October 9, 1991 Federal Register, EPA addressed concerns regarding proposed language that would have allowed a " qualified party" to perform closure and post closure certification. In that FR notice, we stated on page 51103:

The Agency agrees with commenters that objective closure and post closure certifications are essential for avoiding any potential conflicts of interest and ensuring protection of human health and the environment and that more specific requirements concerning the qualification of the certifying party are necessary to ensure the adequacy of the certification. We, therefore, are requiring in this final rule that certifications be obtained from independent, registered, professional engineers ( i. e., registered professional engineers not in the employ of the owner or operator), consistent with requirements under subtitle C and other federally mandated certification programs ( e. g., Clean Water Act grants).

Upon further analysis and reflection, we have decided to delete the independent qualification for certification made by a professional engineer. EPA continues to believe that this proposed modification retains the most important requirements: that the engineer is qualified to perform the task and is a professional engineer ( i. e., licensed to practice engineering under the title Professional Engineer.) We believe that a professional engineer, regardless of whether he/ she is independent is able to give fair and technical review because of the programs established by the state licensing boards. It is not clear to us that an in house engineer faces a greater economic temptation than an independent engineer seeking to cultivate an ongoing relationship with a client. This is a central mission of state licensing boards. If certifications are provided when the facts to do not warrant certification, the professional engineer is subject to penalties, including the loss of license and the possibility of fines. Furthermore, we are convinced that the change to the certification requirements will allow facilities to reduce burden without compromising environmental safety by using in house expertise. Professional engineers employed by a facility are more familiar with its own particular situation and are in a position to provide more on site review and oversight of the activity being certified.

We also solicited comment on removing the term " registered," explaining that based on our understanding of the term " registered" ( one who is licensed by a state) the terms " registered," " licensed" and " professional" mean the same thing in the case of certifying the design, operation and closure of hazardous waste management units. Thus, using the terms " registered" and " professional" when defining the qualification of an engineer, in this context, is redundant. While the majority of the comments supported the change, agreeing that the term " registered" appears to be redundant and could be removed, several commenters were opposed to making the change. These commenters argued that the word " registered" is necessary to prevent confusion in the field, particularly among generators, that a license or registration is required. The Agency is unconvinced by this argument and maintains that the use of " registered" and " professional" as qualifications for engineers making these certifications is redundant and should be simplified.

As a final matter, we unintentionally failed to identify eight additional certification requirements that are part of this regulatory change, i. e., each contains one or a combination of the terms: independent, registered and/ or professional when describing the qualifications of the engineer. These certifications include: ( 1) Section 264.193( h)( 4)( i)( 2), Tank Systems, Containment and detection of releases; ( 2) Section 265.193( h)( 5)( i)( 2), Tank Systems, Containment and detection of releases; ( 3) Section 264.554( c)( 2), Staging Piles; ( 4) Section 264.1101( c)( 2), Containment Buildings, Design and operating standards; ( 5) Section 265.1101( c)( 2), Containment Buildings, Design and operating standards; ( 6) Section 270.14( a), Permit Application, Content of part B. General requirements; ( 7) Section 270.17( d) Permit Application, Specific part B information requirements for surface impoundments; and ( 8) Section 270.26( c)( 15), Permit Application, Special part B information requirements for drip pads. EPA believes today's changes provide consistency to the certification requirements, i. e., removing the terms independent and registered. As such, we are finalizing these eight additional certification changes.

We Are Also Changing the Closure and Post Closure Certification Requirements.

In the October 29, 2003 NODA ( 68 FR 61662), we also solicited comment on amending the qualifications for selected closure and post closure certifications to " qualified professional engineer." These certifications included: ( 1) Section 264.115, Closure and Post Closure, Certification of closure; ( 2) Section 265.115, Closure and Post Closure, Certification of closure; ( 3) Section 264.120, Closure and Post Closure, Certification of completion of post closure care; ( 4) Section 265.120, Closure and Post Closure, Certification of completion of post closure care; and ( 5) Section 264.280( b), Land Treatment, Closure and post closure care.

During the development of today's final rule, we discovered that we incorrectly stated the required qualifications for engineers providing the closure and post closure certifications, and we failed to identify one additional certification, § 265.280( e) Land Treatment, Closure and postclosure care, and six cross reference citations to the original closure and post closure certifications. These cross references are: ( 1) Section 264.143( i), Financial Assurance for Closure, Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section; ( 2) Section 265.143( h), Financial Assurance for Closure, Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section; ( 3) Section 264.145( i), Financial Assurance for Post Closure, Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section; ( 4) Section 265.145( h), Financial Assurance for Post Closure, Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of 10 this section; ( 5) Section 264.147( e), Liability Requirements, Period of coverage; and ( 6) Section 265.147( e), Liability Requirements, Period of coverage.

We incorrectly stated, in both the proposed rule and the October 29, 2003 NODA ( 68 FR 61662), the regulatory requirements for these certifications. In both these notices, we stated that the regulatory language for closure and post closure certifications require an " independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer" to make the certifications. This is incorrect. The regulatory language for these certifications does not include the word " qualified;" the certifications language states that the certification must be made by an " independent, registered, professional engineer." Hence our proposed regulatory change to " qualified professional engineer" for these certifications was inaccurate and inconsistent with our other proposed certification requirements. In our view, this error was minor and does not change our position regarding the redundancy of using both " registered" and " professional," when defining the necessary certification qualifications. This error also does not change our position that all certifications should be conducted by a " qualified professional engineer" i. e., one that is qualified to perform the task and is a professional engineer ( licensed/ registered by the state and following a code of ethics and the potential of losing his/ her license for negligence). As such, we are today amending all the closure and post closure certification requirements to require qualified professional engineers to certify closure and postclosure