[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54501-54503]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0951; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-52-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1,
B2, B3, C, D, D1, AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) model helicopters. This
proposed AD results from a mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) AD issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community. The AD MCAI states ``EASA issued Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2006-0251 and its revisions following a case of total
failure and a case of a crack discovered on the support shaft of the
sliding door rear roller. Metallurgical and metallographic analyses
revealed a nonconformity concerning the heat treatment of the material.
Since then, other cases of cracks and failures of the roller support
shaft rear attach fitting had been reported. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to the loss of the sliding door in flight.''
    Separation of a sliding door in flight creates an unsafe condition
because the door could come into contact with the rotor system. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address this
unsafe condition.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 23,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
Texas 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Gary Roach,
ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations
and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0951;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-52-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2007-0236, dated August 31,
2007, to correct an unsafe condition for specified Eurocopter model
helicopters. The MCAI AD states that EASA issued AD 2006-0251 and its
revisions following a case of total failure and a case of a crack
discovered on the support shaft of the sliding door rear roller.
Metallurgical and metallographic analyses revealed a nonconformity
concerning the heat treatment of the material. Since then, other cases
of cracks and failures of the roller support shaft rear attach fitting
had been reported. EASA AD No. 2007-0236 supersedes EASA AD No. 2006-
0251R2 but retains the requirements for repetitive inspections until
replacement of current parts with improved parts. EASA AD No. 2007-0236
also prohibits installation of another roller support fitting part
number (P/N) 350A25-1270-22 on any AS350 or AS355 helicopter. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI AD and service
information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    On July 18, 2006, Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. 52.00.30 for modifying the AS350 series helicopters and ASB No.
52.00.23 for modifying the AS355 series helicopters. These ASBs
contained modifications 073298 and 073308. The following day,
Eurocopter issued ASB No. 05.00.45 for the AS355 model helicopters and
No. 05.00.47 for the AS350 model helicopters, both dated July 19, 2006.
Later, Eurocopter issued Revision 1 to ASB No. 52.00.23 for the AS355
model helicopters and No. 52.00.30 for the AS350 model helicopters,
both dated June 29, 2007, to modify the sliding door medium roller and
fitting. The actions described in the MCAI AD are intended to correct
the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service
information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical agent, has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA
and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    This AD differs from EASA AD No. 2007-0236 as follows:
     We use the word ``inspect'' to describe the actions
required by a mechanic versus the word ``check,'' which is how we
describe the actions allowed by a pilot.
     We refer to the compliance time as ``hours time-in-service
(TIS)'' rather than ``flying hours.''
     We do not require an operator to tell the manufacturer if
a crack is found in the shaft.
     We are not including the Model L1, which is a military
model helicopter; but we are including the Models 350C and D1
helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 725 products
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-
hours per helicopter to inspect and modify the sliding doors. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $7,000 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,307,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2009-0951; Directorate Identifier
2007-SW-52-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 23, 2009.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1,
B2, B3, C, D, D1, AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, with sliding
door pre-MOD 073298 or pre-MOD 073308, installed, certificated in
any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD
states ``EASA issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-0251 and its
revisions following a case of total failure and a case of a crack
discovered on the support shaft of the sliding door rear roller.
Metallurgical and metallographic analyses revealed a nonconformity
concerning the heat treatment of the material. Since then, other
cases of cracks and failures of the roller support shaft rear attach
fitting had been reported. This condition, if not corrected, could
lead to the loss of the sliding door in flight.'' Separation of a
sliding door in flight creates an unsafe condition because the door
could come into contact with the rotor system. This AD requires
actions that are intended to address this unsafe condition.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Required as indicated.
    (1) For a sliding door with less than 90 hours time-in-service
(TIS), on or before accumulating a total of 110 hours TIS, unless
already done, conduct the visual and dye penetrant inspections of
the support shaft of the rear roller and the rear fitting (fitting)
of the sliding door for a crack by reference to Figure 1 and by
following the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.1 and 2.B.2, of
Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.47 dated July 19,
2006, for the Model AS350 helicopters (ASB 05.00.47) or ASB No.
05.00.45 dated July 19, 2006, for the Model AS355 helicopters (ASB
05.00.45), except you are not required to contact the manufacturer.
    (i) If no crack is found in the shaft or fitting, reinstall the
shaft on the fitting, fit the spring pins, and plug the pin holes by
following the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2. of ASB
05.00.47 or 05.00.45, whichever is appropriate for your model
helicopter.
    (ii) If you find a crack in the fitting, replace the fitting
with an airworthy fitting before further flight.
    (iii) If you find a crack in the shaft, replace the shaft with
an airworthy shaft before further flight, by reference to Figure 1
and following paragraph 2.B.3. of ASB 05.00.47 or 05.00.45,
whichever is appropriate for your model helicopter.
    (2) For a sliding door with 90 or more hours TIS, within the
next 20 hours TIS, unless already done, and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 110 hours TIS, conduct the visual and dye penetrant
inspections of the support shaft of the rear roller and the fitting
of the sliding door for a crack by reference to Figure 1 and by
following the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.1 and 2.B.2, of
ASB 05.00.47 or ASB 05.00.45, whichever is appropriate for your
model helicopter, except you are not required to contact the
manufacturer.
    (i) If no crack is found in the shaft and fitting, reinstall the
shaft or fitting, fit the spring pins, and plug the pin holes by
following the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2. of ASB
05.00.47 or 05.00.45, whichever is appropriate for your model
helicopter.

    (ii) If you find a crack in the fitting, replace the fitting
with an airworthy fitting before further flight.
    (iii) If you find a crack in the shaft, replace the shaft with
an airworthy shaft before further flight by reference to Figure 1
and by following paragraph 2.B.3. of ASB 05.00.47 or 05.45,
whichever is appropriate for your model helicopter.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any of
the following parts on any helicopter:
    (i) Left-hand sliding door, part number (P/N) 350A25-0030-00XX,
350A25-0120-00XX, and 350AMR-0227-0052;
    (ii) Right-hand sliding door, P/N 350A25-0030-01XX, 350A25-0120-
01XX, 350A25-0120-03XX, and 350AMR-0227-0051;
    (iii) Rail roller pin, P/N 350A25-1275-20; and
    (iv) Cast roller support fittings, P/N 350A25-1270-20 and P/N
350A25-1270-22.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) This AD differs from EASA AD No. 2007-0236 as follows:
    (1) We use the word ``inspect'' to describe the actions required
by a mechanic versus the word ``check,'' which is how we describe
the actions allowed by a pilot.
    (2) We refer to the compliance time as hours time-in-service
(TIS) rather than flying hours.
    (3) We do not require an operator to inform the manufacturer if
a crack is found in the shaft as specified in the service
information.
    (4) We do not include the Model L1, which is a military model
helicopter; but we are including the Models 350C and D1 helicopters.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, ATTN: DOT FAA,
Southwest Region, Gary Roach, ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested, using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) MCAI EASA AD No. 2007-0236, dated August 31, 2007, contains
related information.

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code

    (i) JASC Code 5344: Fuselage Door Hinges.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 8, 2009.
Larry M. Kelly,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-25440 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 96 (Thursday, May 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 27482]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005]

Preparations for the 40th Session of the UN Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that OSHA will
conduct a virtual public meeting in advance of certain international
meetings. The first meeting will be held in advance of the official
40th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
(UNSCEGHS) to be held as a hybrid (in-person and virtual) meeting July
5-7, 2021, in Geneva, Switzerland. OSHA, along with the U.S.
Interagency Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling
of Chemicals (GHS) Coordinating Group, plans to consider the comments
and information gathered at this public meeting when developing the
U.S. Government positions for the UNSCEGHS meeting.

DATES: The virtual public meeting will take place on June 23, 2021.
Specific information for each meeting will be posted when available on
the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom_international.html#meeting-notice.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be virtually hosted through the DOT
Headquarters Conference Center, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
    Written Comments: Interested parties may submit comments between
June 4 through 25, 2021, on the Working and Informal Papers for the
40th sessions of the UNSCEGHS to the docket established for
International/Globally Harmonized System (GHS) efforts at: http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. OSHA-2016-0005.
    Registration to Attend and/or to Participate in the Virtual
Meeting: These meetings will be open to the public on a first-come,
first served basis, as space is limited. Advanced meeting registration
information will be posted on the PHMSA website. DOT is committed to
providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you
need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as
sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Attendees may use the same form to pre-register for both meetings.
Failure to pre-register may delay your access into the DOT Headquarters
conference call line. Conference call-in and ``Teams meeting''
capability will be provided for both meetings. Information on how to
access the conference call and ``Teams meeting'' will be posted when
available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-program-overview under Upcoming Events. This information
will also be posted on OSHA's Hazard Communication website on the
international tab at: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom_international.html#meeting-notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    At the Department of Transportation: Please contact Mr. Steven Webb
or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At the Department of Labor: Please contact Ms. Maureen Ruskin, OSHA
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Washington,
DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA will conduct a virtual public meeting
in advance of the 40th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS) to be held as a hybrid meeting in
early July 2021, in Geneva, Switzerland. This virtual public meeting
will occur jointly with the Department of Transportation (DOT),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) (see FR
Doc. 2020-09076 Filed 4-28-20) to discuss proposals in preparation for
the 58th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCETDG) to be held as a hybrid meeting
June 28-July 2, 2021. Advanced meeting registration information will be
posted on the PHMSA website (see Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0224; Notice No.
2020-02).
    For each of these meetings, OSHA and PHMSA will solicit public
input on U.S. government positions regarding proposals submitted by
member countries in advance of each meeting.

The OSHA Meeting

    OSHA is hosting an open informal public meeting of the official
40th session of the UNSCEGHS which will represent the third and final
meeting scheduled for the 2019-2020 biennium. Information on the work
of the UNSCEGHS including meeting agendas, working and informal papers,
reports, and documents from previous sessions can be found on the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport
Division website located at: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html.

The PHMSA Meeting

    Additional information regarding the UNSCETDG and related matters
can be found on PHMSA's website at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-program-overview.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation
of this notice under the authority granted by sections 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657), and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), (Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-10636 Filed 5-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33537-33538]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0051]

The Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Standard on Portable
Fire Extinguishers; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Standard on Portable Fire
Extinguishers (29 CFR 1910.157(f)(16)). The hydrostatic testing
provision requires employers to certify that portable fire
extinguishers have been hydrostatically tested as prescribed by the
Standard by preparing a certification record upon completion of the
test. The record must be maintained on file and made available to OSHA
compliance staff.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0051,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0051). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however,

some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available
to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the
OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address
below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following section describes who uses the information in the
certification record, as well as how they use it. The purpose of the
requirement is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by
ensuring that portable fire extinguishers are in safe operating
condition.

Test Records (Sec.  1910.157(f)(16))

    Paragraph (f)(16) requires employers to develop and maintain a
certification record of hydrostatic testing of portable fire
extinguishers. The certification record must include the date of
inspection, the signature of the person who performed the test, and the
serial number (or other identifier) of the fire extinguisher that was
tested.

Disclosure of Test Certification Records

    The certification record must be made available to the Assistant
Secretary or his/her representative upon request. The certification
record provides assurance to employers, employees, and OSHA compliance
officers that the fire extinguishers have been hydrostatically tested
in accordance with and at the intervals specified in Sec.
1910.157(f)(16), thereby, ensuring that they will operate properly in
the event employees need to use them. Additionally, these records
provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to
determine that an employer is complying with the hydrostatic testing
provision.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Hydrostatic Testing Provision
of the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (29 CFR
1910.157(f)(16)). The Agency is requesting to increase its current
burden hour estimate associated with this Standard from 123,180 hours
to 125,952 hours for a total increase of 2,772 hours. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: The Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Standard on
Portable Fire Extinguishers (29 CFR 1910.157(f)(16)).
    OMB Number: 1218-0218.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 9,202,500.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from one minute (.02 hour) to
maintain a certification record of fire extinguishers tested off-site
to 33 minutes (.55 hour) to test fire extinguishers on-site and to
generate and maintain the certification record.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 125,952.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $16,687,200.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0051). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov. index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov. Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC on June 7, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-11641 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9749-9751]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3146; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-249-AD;
Amendment 39-18411; AD 2016-04-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that
the skin lap splices at certain stringers in certain fuselage sections
are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD) on aging Model 777
airplanes that have accumulated at least 45,000 total flight cycles.
This AD requires inspections to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap
splices in certain fuselage sections, and corrective actions if
necessary; modification of left-side and right-side lap splices; and
post-modification repetitive inspections for cracks in the modified lap
splices, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and
consequent risk of sudden decompression and the inability to sustain
limit flight and pressure loads.

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3146.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3146; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51488) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was
prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the skin lap
splices at certain stringers in certain fuselage sections are subject
to WFD on aging airplanes (airplanes that have accumulated at least
45,000 total flight cycles). The NPRM proposed to require inspections
to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap splices in certain fuselage
sections, and corrective actions if necessary; modification of left-
side and right-side lap splices; and post-modification repetitive
inspections for cracks in the modified lap splices, and corrective
actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent risk of sudden
decompression and the inability to sustain limit flight and pressure
loads.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    An anonymous commenter expressed support for the NPRM.

Request To Revise WFD Criteria Definition

    Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that DAH
analysis indicates that potential multi-site damage that could lead to
WFD does not occur until at least 45,000 total flight cycles on aging
Model 777 airplanes.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised the SUMMARY
and Discussion sections of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD
to specify that this AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH
indicating that the skin lap splices at certain stringers in certain
fuselage sections are subject to WFD on aging Model 777 airplanes that
have accumulated at least 45,000 total flight cycles.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic

burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for
inspections to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap splices,
modification to the skin lap splices, repetitive inspections for cracks
in the modified lap splices, and repairs. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and modification....  2,713 work-hours x $85               $0  $230,605..........  $4,842,705.
                                  per hour = $230,605.
Post-modification inspection...  1,391 work-hours x $85                0  $118,235 per        $2,482,935 per
                                  per hour = $118,235                      inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-04-17 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18411; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3146; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-249-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 1, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder indicating that the skin lap splices at certain stringers in
certain fuselage sections are subject to widespread fatigue damage
on aging Model 777 airplanes that have accumulated at least 45,000
total flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent risk of
sudden decompression and the inability to sustain limit flight and
pressure loads.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014:
Do Part 1, inspection ``A,'' of the modification area for cracks;
Part 2, inspection ``B,'' of the modification area for cracks; and
Part 3, inspection ``C,'' of the modification area for scribe lines
and cracks; as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions;
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as
provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) Inspection ``A'' includes an external phased array
ultrasonic inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped skin of the
stringer S-14 left and right (L/R) lap splices between fuselage
station 655 and station 1434, and an open hole high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for skin cracks at the upper and lower
fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.
    (2) Inspection ``B'' includes the inspections specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.
    (i) A detailed inspection for cracks of any skin panel common to
a stringer S-14 L/R lap splice between fuselage station 655 and
station 1434 that has a scribe line 0.001 inch or deeper.

    (ii) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC
inspection for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe
line(s)) of any skin panel common to a stringer S-14 L/R lap splice
between fuselage station 655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line
0.001 inch or deeper.
    (iii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks
in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices
between fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
    (iv) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper
and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.
    (3) Inspection ``C'' includes the inspections for scribe lines
and cracks specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and
(g)(3)(iii) of this AD on stringer S-14 L/R lap splice between
fuselage station 655 and station 1434 on both sides of the airplane.
    (i) A detailed inspection for scribe lines. If any scribe line
is found during the inspection required by this paragraph, the
actions include the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A)
and (g)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) A detailed inspection for cracks of the scribe line area(s).
    (B) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC inspection
for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe line(s)).
    (ii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks
in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices
between fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
    (iii) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper
and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies a
compliance time ``after the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time ``after the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) If, during accomplishment of any inspection required by this
AD, any condition is found for which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for
special repair instructions or supplemental instructions for the
modification, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, do the repair or modification
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(i) Lap Splice Modification

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014: Do the left-side and right-side lap splice
modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014,
except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) Post-Modification Inspections and Corrective Action

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated
October 10, 2014: Do a post-modification internal surface HFEC
inspection for skin cracks in the modified lap splices on both sides
of the airplane; and do all applicable corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as
provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of
the modified lap splices thereafter at the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and
(k)(4)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10,
2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager,
    Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03886 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                             Response to Comments
                                 December 2013

On the Proposed Federal Plan for Certifying Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides within Indian Country, EPA received comments from the Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC), Cherokee Nation, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). On the Proposed Federal Plan for Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides within EPA Region 8 Indian Country, EPA Region 8 received comments from the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Montana Department of Agriculture, the USDA APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program, and two pesticide applicators. Below is a summary of all the comments received and EPA's responses.

Comment 1: Notification of Tribes Prior to RUP Use
The TPPC and several tribes requested that EPA include a provision in the final EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides within Indian Country (EPA plan) that would require applicators to notify a tribe prior to application of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) on their lands. As an example, the TPPC pointed to the Gila River Indian Community requirement for notification of their tribe prior to pesticide application using the Arizona Department of Agriculture Form 1080. These commenters stated it is important for Indian tribes to know what, when and where pesticides are applied to their lands, not only for health-related purposes, but also for the protection of cultural practices. They also believe a notification requirement will provide tribes with some ability to say no to, or closely monitor, an RUP application if the intended location was in or near a cultural site or tribal resource. These commenters believe a notification requirement is necessary for EPA to meet its trust responsibility to tribes. They also believe a precedent exists with the soil fumigation notification system. The commenters believe the soil fumigation notification approach is a desirable model because it would allow Indian tribes to decide if they want to be notified prior to an application, which would support tribal self-determination. They also believe a notification requirement would not place undue burden on a tribe because it is strictly up to the tribe if it wants to take on any additional responsibilities that occur as a result of being notified in advance of a pesticide application.

Some of these commenters stated that EPA should create an "opt-in" process for Indian tribes that want to be notified in advance of an RUP application on their land. Tribes that want notification prior to RUP use would be expected to identify a contact person to whom advance notification of a pesticide application should be provided. That contact person should be posted on an EPA website. They also believe EPA should develop a form for applicators to use to notify the tribes about proposed pesticide applications.

It was also requested that EPA make a database publicly available that lists applicators with their contact information and current certifications by state and EPA Region. This database could be maintained by the Agency's Regional Pesticide Program Offices. The database would provide Indian tribes with a better sense as to the applicators with federal certificates who might potentially apply RUPs on their lands.

One applicator was concerned that a notification provision would make it difficult to apply RUPs in emergency situations or on weekends.

Response 1: Under FIFRA and its current regulations, EPA is unable at this time to include a tribal notification provision in the plan, as explained below. However, EPA recognizes that tribal notification requirements may exist under tribal law, as is the case with the Gila River Indian Community in the example provided in the TPPC comments. Federal certifications issued by EPA under this EPA plan will explicitly inform applicators that they should take steps to determine if there are additional requirements under tribal law for RUP application, including tribal notification requirements.

While some commenters pointed to the notification process for soil fumigants as a precedent for EPA requiring notification of tribes prior to RUP applications, the justification and authorities that supported the notification requirements for soil fumigants are not available to support applicator notification requirements under a federal certification plan. In the case of soil fumigants, notification is required as part of EPA's reregistration risk mitigation decision to assure that soil fumigants meet FIFRA registration standards. EPA has not generally made that determination for other RUPs.

Under FIFRA section 11, which provides the authority for issuing federal certification plans, rulemaking is the mechanism required for commercial applicator reporting. EPA considers a notification requirement to be the same as a reporting requirement. Additionally, FIFRA section 11 does not provide EPA authority to require any reporting from, or recordkeeping by, private applicators. Development of a rulemaking to require commercial applicators to notify tribes prior to RUP application could take several years. EPA does not believe that we should delay the benefits of proceeding with the EPA plan while rulemaking is considered to require commercial applicators to notify tribes prior to use. Therefore, EPA will proceed with finalizing this EPA plan at this time. As the Agency gains experience implementing the plan, the Agency will re-evaluate if rulemaking to implement a tribal notification requirement is needed to allow both EPA and the tribes to protect human health and the environment from RUP application in Indian country. The Agency will continue to consult with tribes and coordinate with the TPPC on this issue, as appropriate, as the EPA plan is implemented.

In the meantime, to assist tribes in identifying and communicating directly with applicators certified under this EPA plan, EPA will implement the TPPC suggestion to make a database publicly available that lists applicators (with their location and current certifications) by state upon which the federal certification was based and by EPA Region. EPA expects to implement this recommendation by posting a list of federally certified applicators at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indian-country.

Comment 2: Training Needed That Is Specific to Indian Country
The TPPC, Cherokee Nation and Kashia Band of Pomo Indians were concerned that the training and exams that pesticide applicators receive through states (i.e., EPA-approved training) do not address the nuances of applying pesticides in Indian country and do not specifically require applicators to demonstrate that they are competent to apply pesticides in Indian country. They stated that EPA-approved training should include a discussion of tribal government, cultural practices, natural resources, examples of tribal regulations, information about the website identifying tribes that want to be notified prior to an RUP application, and other pertinent tribal information. A notification process requiring applicators to follow tribal laws, and incorporating that requirement onto pesticide labels, addresses the discrepancy and empowers the tribe to assure that applicators are competent.

Response 2: EPA developed online training for private applicators who choose the training under the EPA plan.  In this online training, EPA did not include all of the information relevant to Indian country requested by commenters because of the many differences among federally recognized tribes. However, the training does communicate that tribes may have more stringent requirements and refers applicators to the relevant tribe(s) for details.

EPA will also request that instructors of commercial and private applicator training available for state certification, which can be used to obtain federal certification, inform participants of their obligation to obtain federal certification when applying in Indian country.  Additionally, EPA will ask instructors to inform applicators, and will include on the federal certifications, that additional tribal requirements may exist for some areas of Indian country, such as prohibitions on the use of RUPs or requirements to notify the tribe prior to use, and that the applicator should determine whether any additional tribal laws or requirements exist.

Additionally, EPA is establishing a website that will list contact information for commercial applicators who have been issued a federal certification under this EPA plan, available at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indian-country. If they desire, tribes may use this contact information to notify federally certified commercial applicators who may apply in their Indian country of specific tribal information or requirements. Because of potential privacy concerns, EPA will not release the addresses of private applicators, but will include general location information (e.g., zip code) on the EPA website.

Comment 3: Option to Not Participate in the EPA Plan
The TPPC and Cherokee Nation commented that EPA should provide Indian tribes with an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of the EPA plan so tribes can decide whether this EPA plan should apply on their lands. They stated that this approach was needed to support the principles of tribal self-determination and provide tribes with the ability to control their own affairs and make decisions that affect their respective community members. They point out that there may be some tribes that do not want RUPs applied to their lands for reasons including concerns with the impacts of pesticides on cultural and natural resources and the health of community members.

Response 3: The Agency supports the concepts of tribal self-determination and believes there are ways for tribes to exercise this more directly than with an opt-out provision. EPA generally does not provide an opportunity for tribes or states to opt-in or out of other pesticide actions (e.g., Section 3 registrations), so EPA will not provide that opportunity for this EPA plan. However, consistent with the principles of tribal sovereignty and self-determination, this EPA plan acknowledges several other mechanisms available to tribes which can supersede this plan. For example, subject to EPA approval, tribes may still develop their own tribal certification plans under 40 CFR 171.10(a)(2), or enter into an agreement under 40 CFR 171.10(a)(1) with a state to use a state certification program; both of these options would replace the EPA plan. Tribes may also further restrict or prohibit the use of RUPs in their areas through the implementation of tribal codes, laws or regulations. The EPA plan makes it clear that applicators should take steps to determine if there are additional restrictions or prohibitions to the use of RUPs in Indian country under tribal laws.

Establishing an opt-in or opt-out provision would pose numerous logistical and communication complications which would significantly increase the burden of this EPA plan on applicators, the tribes and EPA. Further, allowing an opt-in or opt-out provision would undermine the goals of establishing this EPA plan, which are to ensure that the same pest control tools and environmental and health protections are provided in Indian country as are provided throughout the United States.

Comment 4: Consultation
The TPPC and Cherokee Nation expressed concern over the tribal consultation approach that EPA used for the EPA plan. They stated that EPA should not conduct tribal consultations using conference calls and should instead develop a consultation plan based on tribal preferences. They also expressed concern that tribal representatives on the calls were not necessarily tribal leaders.

Response 4: EPA believes that the approach to tribal consultation for this EPA plan was both effective and in keeping with the Agency Tribal Consultation Policy and the Executive Order on Tribal Consultation. According to the Agency Tribal Consultation Policy:

      Consultation is a process of meaningful communication and coordination between EPA and tribal officials prior to EPA taking actions or implementing decisions that may affect tribes. As a process, consultation includes several methods of interaction that may occur at different levels. The appropriate level of interaction is determined by past and current practices, adjustments made through this Policy, the continuing dialogue between EPA and tribal governments, and program and regional office consultation procedures and plans.

The policy also states:

      The specific form that any given consultation process takes is influenced by the variety of factors including, but not limited to, the issues being considered, the number of tribes potentially impacted, time and resource limitations of the tribes involved, and other pertinent factors. In some cases, EPA may need to rely on teleconferences or other approaches in order to conduct consultation. EPA cannot commit to face-to-face meetings in all instances.

Specifically, for the EPA federal certification plan, EPA sent letters to each tribe. The letters went to the tribal chair/president, the environmental director, and/or the pesticide director, depending on the contact information available. We also asked each EPA region and the TPPC to notify tribes about the consultation via their networks. EPA then hosted two tribal consultation conference calls and webinars, on November 29 and December 13, 2010, to consult with all federally recognized tribes on the draft EPA plan, and provide an opportunity for tribal participants to ask questions and offer substantive input on the approach proposed. Although specifically offered, EPA has not received a request for additional tribal consultation. In addition to tribal consultation, over the past several years EPA has also had numerous discussions with the TPPC regarding this EPA plan, discussed the EPA plan as it was being developed with several of the Regional Tribal Operation Committees, and discussed issues surrounding this EPA plan with representatives from several individual tribes.

Initially, there was a separate federal certification plan in development for Region 8. Region 8 held three formal consultations with the tribes in Region 8. The tribal leadership received notification of the consultation events by letter and email. Additionally, updates were provided at the biannual Region 8 Tribal Regional Operations Committee meetings. In addition, updates were provided to the tribal pesticide program inspectors during the annual Region 8 Pesticide Manager's Meeting and during quarterly update calls with the tribes. Finally, Region 8 mailed informational postcards to each tribal office with the request that the tribe share the outreach postcards with applicators on their reservation.

Comment 5: EPA's Ability to Enforce the EPA Plan
The TPPC and the Cherokee Nation raised concerns with EPA's ability to implement and enforce the EPA plan given the current budget constraints. Specifically, they requested that the Agency provide further detail about how it intends to implement and enforce the EPA plan.

 Response 5: EPA will implement and enforce the plan using current resources, including EPA regional inspectors and tribal circuit riders. Even without implementing this EPA plan, EPA is already the entity with enforcement authority under FIFRA in Indian country, including enforcement of the illegal use of RUPs. Implementation of this EPA plan should not impose a significant additional burden for EPA. However, the EPA plan provides a mechanism to ensure competency and clear requirements that will support enforcement of FIFRA in Indian country. In addition, tribes with cooperative agreements may work with EPA regional offices to pursue FIFRA non-compliance, conduct inspections, and assure compliance.

Comment 6: Labeling Statement Requiring Adherence to Tribal Laws and Ordinances
The Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria stated that EPA should include on the pesticide label the requirement to adhere to tribal laws and ordinances if applying on tribal lands. The comment stated that tribes can only enforce against a misuse of application as it applies to the label under this EPA plan. Further, the commenter stated that tribes do not have the authority, under FIFRA, to enforce against the applicator's certification.

Response 6: The EPA plan and certification letters will remind applicators certified under this EPA plan that they should take steps to determine if there are additional tribal requirements affecting application of RUPs. However, EPA does not believe that this federal certification plan is the appropriate mechanism for requiring revised labeling on RUPs. EPA will explore whether a labeling statement like the one recommended should be implemented through other mechanisms in the future.

Comment 7: EPA Plan will Interfere with Timely Applications
The USDA APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program relies on timely pesticide application. APHIS is concerned that the short time between the contract award and treatment may not allow timely action if the applicator needs to go through a certification process, and thus compromise the ability to suppress grasshopper or Mormon cricket outbreaks.

Response 7: The USDA APHIS has a certification plan that allows for the certification of USDA employees for insect control applications and, as a federal agency, has authority to administer certificates for applications by its employees in Indian country. Therefore, an additional federal certificate is not required for these APHIS employees. However, the USDA APHIS plan does not extend to contracted applicators and these applicators would need to be certified under EPA's federal plan for Indian country. Although an EPA-issued federal certification is required, EPA understands the need for insect control applications to occur swiftly and without undue delay in order to suppress the pest populations. EPA will work with USDA APHIS to expedite the issuance of these certifications as these situations arise.

Comment 8: Cost of Applying for the Federal Certificate
One commenter pointed out that there is no mention of costs associated with applying for a federal certificate.

Response 8: There is no charge to obtain the federal certificate. EPA notes that states or tribes administering EPA-approved certification plans may have a fee associated with obtaining a state or tribal certificate or participating in training. The EPA plan does not affect such fees.

Comment 9: What is Considered "Indian Country" and which Residents within Indian Country are Covered by the EPA Plan
   (a) Several commenters asked for a clarification of the terms "Indian country" and "reservation."
   (b) One commenter wrote that non-Indians residing on the reservation may take advantage of either the state or federal plan to apply RUPs in Indian country according to 40 CFR 171.10(2)(c), if RUPs have been historically utilized on the reservation without objection from the tribe.
   (c) Also, several comments disagreed that the federal certification plan was required for all RUP applicators in Indian country as defined at Title 18 U.S.C. 1151; these comments stated that the federal certification should be applicable within `Indian reservations' as described in 40 CFR 171.10 and 40 CFR 171.11.
   (d) One state was unclear if a tribe that is recognized by a state, but not federally recognized, would be covered by the Plan.

Response 9:
   (a) The term "Indian country" is defined in the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 1151. Consistent with relevant Supreme Court precedent, this definition, although included in a criminal provision, also applies in the civil regulatory context. As defined by statute and as used in this certification plan, "Indian country" includes all land within Indian reservations (including both fee and trust lands within reservation boundaries and both formal and informal reservations), as well as allotments and dependent Indian communities that may be located outside of a reservation boundary.

   (b) Under EPA's regulations, Indian tribes may choose to enter into an agreement with a state to use a state certification plan (rather than the federal plan or an EPA-approved tribal certification plan) when EPA has approved this approach as described in 40 CFR 171.10(a)(1). In such cases, this approach would generally apply to all applicators (both Indian and non-Indian) of restricted use pesticides on the tribe's reservation. Neither FIFRA nor its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 171 require Indian tribes to utilize a state's certification plan. Rather, consistent with section 11 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has promulgated the following three relevant options for tribes: (1) utilize an approved state plan with the state's concurrence and EPA approval consistent with the terms of 171.10(a)(1); (2) develop its own plan that is approved by EPA consistent with the terms of 171.10(a)(2); or (3) utilize a federal plan for certification that is administered by EPA consistent with 171.11. 40 CFR 171.10(c) does not create a separate mechanism for establishing a certification plan on Indian reservations. In addition, EPA's implementation of a federal plan for certification neither hinders the development of tribal pesticide codes nor impedes a tribe's decision to develop a tribal certification plan or use a state certification plan as described in 40 CFR 171.10(a). As stated in the plan, EPA remains supportive of tribal codes and certification plans. However, currently there are only four tribes nationally that utilize EPA-approved tribal plans to certify applicators and two tribes relying on a state plan as part of an agreement with the state.

   (c) EPA believes that Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, as opposed to just the Indian reservation component of Indian country, is the appropriate geographic scope for this federal plan. EPA notes that primary jurisdiction over land that is Indian country generally rests with the federal government and the relevant Indian tribe, and not with the states. See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998). FIFRA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 150-189 apply in Indian country, and EPA has authority to implement the statute and regulations in such areas, including over Indian and non-Indian residents. EPA has not approved any state to administer FIFRA or EPA's implementing regulations for any area of Indian country, and there is thus a gap in certification coverage for all areas of Indian country where there is no separate EPA-approved or EPA-implemented plan.

   (d) This EPA plan applied in Indian country, which is generally associated with tribes which are federally recognized.

Comment 10: Tribes Should Utilize the State Plans to Provide Seamless Coverage
One state expressed a concern that EPA discourages tribes from using the state certification plan, even though the state's understanding is that it is encouraged or mandated by law. The view is that a more consistent pesticide program would be achieved by utilizing a state certification plan that crosses state and tribal boundaries. The state disagreed that the EPA plan would further environmental and public health protection and believes that the EPA plan would instead impede state and tribal cooperation.

Response 10: EPA disagrees that this plan is discouraging tribes from utilizing state certification plans. Only two tribes nationally have agreements with states to use the state plan. These agreements are not affected by the implementation of this EPA plan. Neither FIFRA nor its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 171 require Indian tribes to utilize a state's certification plan. Rather, EPA regulations provide three relevant options for Indian tribes: (1) utilize the state's plan with the state's concurrence and EPA approval (40 CFR 171.10(a)(1)); (2) develop a tribal plan that is approved by EPA (40 CFR 171.10(a)(2)); or (3) utilize a federal plan for certification that is administered by EPA (40 CFR 171.11).

In addition, EPA's implementation of a federal plan for certification neither hinders the development of tribal pesticide codes nor impedes a tribe's decision to develop a tribal certification plan or use a state certification plan as described in 40 CFR 171.10(a). As stated in the plan, EPA remains supportive of tribal codes and certification plans.

EPA-approved state plans do not cover use of RUPs in Indian country. Without an EPA-approved federal or tribal plan, RUP applicators are unable to obtain valid certifications for applications within Indian country. The EPA federal plan will fill a gap in implementation of the certification program in Indian country and assist EPA in identifying the universe of RUP applicators so that compliance assistance and outreach can be provided.

Comment 11: Regulate Applications in Indian Country vs. State Lands
One commenter asked: If a private applicator who is only federally certified wishes to buy an RUP at a dealer either on or off reservation, how will it be determined where the applicator will apply the product? In the event the private applicator owns property outside of the reservation, is the EPA plan allowing the private applicator to use RUPs within areas under state jurisdiction?

Response 11:  The plan only addresses the sale and use of RUPs within Indian country.  The plan does not limit where an applicator may purchase RUPs.  However, state law, regulations, or policy will determine whether the federal private applicator certification will be sufficient to allow the sale or use of an RUP outside of Indian country and on land within the state jurisdiction. If state law requires that RUPs can only be purchased by someone with a state certificate, then the private applicator will need to have a state certificate to purchase RUPs from dealers located in the state.  Likewise, in order for a private applicator to apply RUPs on state land, the state may determine whether it will issue the applicator a reciprocal state certificate based on the federal certificate or if the applicator must pursue a state certificate through another mechanism.

Comment 12: Verifying the Validity of the Underlying Certificate
Several states commented that if a state certificate is used as the underlying certificate, EPA should verify the validity of the state certificate prior to issuing a federal certificate.

Response 12: When an applicator completes and signs the form requesting to be certified, the applicator is attesting that the underlying certificate is valid and may be subject to both civil and criminal penalties if the certificate is later determined to be invalid. The EPA Regions, who are issuing the certificates, will take steps to monitor the validity of the underlying certificates.

Comment 13: Reciprocity
 As it is currently written, the EPA plan only allows an applicator to provide a valid state certificate from a state which shares a contiguous boundary with the area of Indian country where an applicator would like to apply an RUP. Several states asked if an applicator will be able to use a state certificate to apply for a federal certificate when the state certificate is itself issued based on reciprocity with another state.

Another commenter stated that EPA should allow certificates from states that do not share a contiguous boundary with the reservation, especially for applicators coming from out of state.

One commenter also stated that private applicators holding only a federal certificate would not be certified under state law and should not be able to use the federal certificate to apply in the state.

Response 13: EPA will accept valid state certificates even if that certificate was issued based on a reciprocal agreement. A state decision to offer reciprocity is based on that state's determination that the reciprocal state certification program assures competency to apply RUPs within the state. EPA is relying on the states to provide certificates to applicators who have the knowledge and skills to apply in their particular state. Therefore, certificates based on reciprocity can be used to apply for a federal certificate.

If an applicator has an underlying certificate that is not from a state contiguous to the area of Indian country where the applicator intends to apply, then the applicator will need to obtain an appropriate underlying certificate before obtaining a federal certificate for that area. EPA is relying on certificates from states and tribes with contiguous boundaries because the use and other considerations, e.g., environmental factors, are likely to be similar for contiguous areas. However, EPA recognizes that situations may arise where an underlying certificate from a contiguous area cannot be obtained. EPA has also included revised  language in the final plan that gives the Regions limited flexibility to accept other underlying certificates in appropriate circumstances.

EPA recognizes that federal certificates for private and commercial applicators issued under this EPA-implemented plan for Indian country are not valid for RUP applications outside of the designated areas of Indian country, and may therefore not be lawfully used to apply RUPs in state lands. EPA intends to emphasize this point in the plan-related communication materials. If the applicator wants to apply in the state, it is the responsibility of the applicator to determine if a state will issue the applicator a reciprocal state certificate based on the federal certificate or if the applicator must pursue a state certificate through another mechanism.

Comment 14: No-Test Option
One commenter noted that it may be difficult for an applicator to obtain the training necessary to apply for a private applicator certification if not relying on the state certification.

Response 14:  EPA developed an online training course for private applicators that can be used as the basis to obtain a federal certification.  This online training will be offered on a regular basis to facilitate private applicators obtaining the training required if they choose not to rely on the state certification to obtain the federal certification.   EPA had also developed another, interim option for private applicators to use state training as the basis for a federal certification while EPA developed the online training.  However, while the application form to apply for federal certification still reflects this interim option, this option will not be used while the online training is available.

Comment 15: Non State Option for Commercial Applicators
Some Indian tribes commented that they do not want the federal plan to rely so heavily on states for initial certification. Just as an option is provided in the EPA plan for private applicators, tribes would prefer that EPA provide a test for commercial applicators for certification that does not rely on the state process.

Response 15: EPA does not believe the online training developed for private applicators is sufficient for commercial applicators and does not currently have the resources to develop additional training and testing for commercial applicators. However, we believe relying on existing certification programs can assure the level of competency needed to use RUPs in Indian country safely. Since states do offer extensive and comprehensive programs, EPA will require that commercial applicators use such state programs if they choose to obtain a federal certificate to apply RUPs in Indian country. While the federal certificate will be granted on the basis of a state certificate, it is the federal certificate that satisfies applicable requirements of FIFRA and its implementing regulations for RUP applications in Indian country, and states will have no authority to enforce this federal program in Indian country. Tribes continue to have the option of developing their own certification program that would not have to rely on state certification programs and could include training and testing for private and commercial applicators.

Comment 16: Applicators with Less Training
Several states shared information about applicators that are certified by the state as `operators' and, since the training is less rigorous, these applicator/operators may only work under a certified `supervisory' applicator. The states expressed concern that EPA may certify the applicator/operators under the federal plan.

Response 16: For applicators relying on a certificate issued pursuant to an EPA-approved state plan as the predicate for applying for a federal certificate under this EPA plan, only those that are certified applicators, as defined in section 2(e) of FIFRA, may obtain a federal certification. Applicators who do not possess a full certification to apply RUPs in a state will not be eligible to obtain a federal certification through this mechanism under the plan. EPA will take steps, including working with states, to assure `operators' are not issued federal certificates. As needed, EPA will work with the states to identify the differences between 'operator' certifications and RUP applicator cards, as well as any other distinctions that the states may make.

Comment 17: Categories for Private Applicators
Several states asked if EPA would allow categories in the federal plan for private applicators. Also, several states questioned how other applicators, such as government applicators, will be covered in the plan.

Response 17: EPA will recognize any categories or restrictions on an underlying certificate. Therefore, if an underlying certificate has categories for private applicators, those categories would carry over to the federal certificate. If a state certifies applicators as `government applicators,' the federal plan will consider these applicators as commercial applicators. EPA will recognize the commercial applicator categories contained in the underlying state, tribal, or federal certificate with the exception of the sodium fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide categories. EPA recognizes that underlying certificates from different states, tribes, or federal agencies may have different applicator categories and that this will be reflected in the certificate issued under the EPA plan.

Comment 18: Sodium Cyanide Capsules Used with Ejector Devices or Sodium Fluoroacetate Used in Livestock Protection Collars
While a written comment was not submitted, several states noted during meetings that they would be interested in becoming registrants on behalf of interested tribes, if the tribes wanted to allow the sodium cyanide capsules used with ejector devices or sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock protection collars to be used on their reservations. States questioned how applications of these products will occur if tribes do not have a pesticide program and cannot monitor the usage on their reservation, making them ineligible to become a registrant.

Response 18: States cannot serve as a registrant of these products on behalf of an Indian tribe. Under the terms of the registrations for sodium cyanide capsules used with ejector devices and sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock protection collars, the registrant of these products must be able to supervise the use and enforce against the misuse of the product. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the state to act as a registrant, since states are not generally approved to administer programs in Indian country under FIFRA.

A tribe that would like to be a registrant of one of these products must have the ability to provide a supervisory role in the application of the product and be able to inspect and enforce against any misapplication of the product (42 FR 8406; February 10, 1977). Therefore, some tribes will not have the capacity to serve as a registrant of these products. If a tribe is not in a position to serve as the registrant but would like to allow use of these products, that tribe could work with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is the only federal agency that is currently a registrant, or with another federal agency that might become a registrant. APHIS employees, once certified under the EPA plan, can apply sodium cyanide capsules used with ejector devices and sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock protection collars within the area of Indian country associated with the relevant Indian tribe. EPA expects that there would be an agreement in effect between the tribe and APHIS (or other federal agency) that includes application of sodium cyanide capsules used with ejector devices and sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock protection collars prior to any application.

Comment 19: Notification of Violations in Indian Country
One state was interested in being informed about any alleged violations by applicators in Indian country who are issued a federal certification based on that state's applicator certificate. The state was also interested in learning of any violations that occurred when state-registered pesticides are used in Indian country.

Response 19: EPA understands that a state may be concerned when an applicator is investigated for an RUP misuse and the applicator's federal certificate is based on their state certificate. Just as one state may notify another state regarding a violation on a reciprocal certification, EPA may inform other states regarding violations that may occur when operating under the federal certificate. For minor issues, states do not generally notify other states and EPA plans to follow this model.

If a federal certificate is revoked, EPA will inform the agency that issued the underlying certification as soon as possible. If the underlying state certificate is revoked, the federal certificate will also become invalid and the applicator will no longer be legally allowed to apply RUPs in Indian country. The applicator may appeal this decision in accordance with the procedures at 40 CFR 171.11(f).

Comment 20: Inspections of Applicators in Indian country
One state requested that EPA coordinate inspection activities with the state so that the state and EPA do not inadvertently inspect the same applicator. An applicator commented that the state and EPA will both investigate complaints in Indian country which could result in the possibility of double fines.

Response 20:
Under FIFRA, EPA has authority to implement a federal certification and training program for applicators of restricted use pesticides in Indian country in the absence of an EPA-approved program and authority to perform inspections in Indian country. In addition, under general principles of federal Indian law, primary jurisdiction in Indian country generally lies with the federal government and the relevant Indian tribe for the area at issue, and not with the states. No state is currently approved by EPA to administer a certification and training program for any area of Indian country. In the absence of an EPA-approved program, EPA is the appropriate implementing entity throughout Indian country, as defined at Title 18 U.S.C. 1151, for the certification and training program under FIFRA. RUP applicators in Indian country certified under the EPA plan will be operating under federal requirements and EPA will be responsible for enforcement. However, any applicator applying in multiple jurisdictions (e.g., both within and outside of Indian country) may be subject to inspections by those jurisdictions. EPA will attempt to coordinate inspections and enforcement response regarding applications on land that straddles both Indian country (where EPA is the implementing entity) and non-Indian country state lands (where a state implements the program) so that duplication will be minimized.

Comment 21: Enforcement of State C&T and Regulatory Requirements
When an applicator uses a valid state certificate as the underlying certificate to receive a federal certificate, can EPA enforce a) the state categories, b) the state C&T requirements, and c) the state regulations which are referenced in the state C&T plan?

Response 21: EPA is using the state certificate and categories as a way to determine the competency of an applicator to apply RUPs and therefore whether they can obtain a federal certificate. The federal certificate will encompass the same categories as the underlying state certificate. EPA is responsible for assuring compliance for applicators applying RUPs under the EPA plan but will not be enforcing the state requirements.

Comment 22: Duplicative and Redundant
Several commenters questioned why EPA is issuing another certification when the state already issues a certificate. These commenters stated that it is duplicative for the state and EPA to issue certificates. They also believe the plan results in unnecessary bureaucracy because the federal certificate is based on the state certificate. The commenters are concerned that there may be double reporting because applicators may operate both within and outside of Indian country and dealers may be subject to multiple reporting requirements. They also stated that it is also not clear who will do the educational outreach for EPA. The commenters claim that there are no additional benefits to the federal certification and is a waste of federal dollars. One commenter discussed their experience making applications within Indian country and that they did not see the value of an additional certificate.

Response 22: EPA notes that RUP applications require a valid certificate issued pursuant to an EPA-approved or EPA-implemented plan. EPA believes that this federal certification plan is necessary to fill a gap in areas of Indian country where no other EPA-approved or EPA-implemented plan exists. EPA has not approved any state to implement a certification program over any area of Indian country. Thus, currently under FIFRA and its implementing regulations, unless a tribe has chosen to utilize a state's plan and there is an agreement between the tribe and state, with EPA approval, consistent with 40 CFR § 171.10(a)(1), the tribe has its own EPA-approved tribal certification plan consistent with 40 CFR § 171.10(a)(2), or EPA has approved another federal agency's plan or implemented its own plan, there is no applicable plan to issue certificates for applications of RUPs in Indian country. Therefore, while we understand the commenter's concern about unnecessary bureaucracy, this plan is necessary to provide a mechanism for applicators to receive applicator certification where no legal mechanism currently exists. We believe we have constructed this plan to minimize the burden to obtain a federal certification. Under the federal plan, rather than requiring applicators to complete a separate examination to obtain a federal certificate, EPA is reducing the burden on the applicator and EPA by allowing the applicator to show proof of a certificate issued pursuant to an EPA-approved or EPA-implemented plan in order to demonstrate competency. There is no additional fee to apply for the federal certificate.

We do not expect that double reporting will be a problem. Under the plan, dealers located within an area of Indian country that is covered by the plan will have to provide an initial report to EPA and comply with federal recordkeeping requirements. If a dealer is located on state land outside of Indian country, any RUP sales to federally certified applicators should be reported as indicated in the state plan. Commercial applicators are required to keep records. Among other things, these records must include the location of the application, so applications occurring under the state certification and federal certification should be identifiable. It is not unusual for applicators to have certificates in multiple states or jurisdictions. In addition, there are several tribal plans that rely on state certificates to demonstrate competency and a federal plan for Navajo Indian country that also uses state certificates to demonstrate competency. Double reporting and confusion with recordkeeping have not been a problem in these programs.

EPA, with the assistance of our tribal partners and pesticide educators, will do outreach on the plan. In addition, EPA is the appropriate entity with authority for implementation and enforcement.

Comment 23: Dealer Reports
One commenter asked if dealers located in Indian country are required to submit information to EPA.

Response 23: Dealers that are located within Indian country are required to supply information to EPA according to 40 CFR 171.11(g)(1). Specifically, dealers must report the business name by which the RUP retail dealer operates, and the name and business address of each dealership. The reports must be submitted within 60 days of the effective of this plan or within 60 days after then person first becomes a restricted use pesticide retail dealer.

Comment 24: Section 18 Record Requirements
One state questioned if the federal plan would require a change in the reporting requirements for Section 18 Emergency Exemptions.

Response 24: The EPA plan does not address section 18 reporting requirements.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 410]
[FR Doc No: C1-2017-26990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82267; File No. SR-BOX-2017-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees

December 11, 2017.

Correction

    In notice document 2017-26990, appearing on pages 59680-59682, in
the issue of Friday, December 15, 2017, please note the following
correction:
    On page 59682 in the third column, in the thirty-eighth line from
the top, ``January 5, 2017'' should read ``January 5, 2018''.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-26990 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="16/06/2008 12:35:25 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>