82936 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1 33 U.S.C. 1313(a), (c). 

2 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4). 

paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(2) 

of this section; 

(2) A petitioner bears the burden of 

persuasion to show, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that any proposed 

substitute claims are unpatentable; and 

(3) Irrespective of paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section, the Board may, 

in the interests of justice, exercise its 

discretion to grant or deny a motion to 

amend only for reasons supported by 

readily identifiable and persuasive 

evidence of record. In doing so, the 

Board may make of record only readily 

identifiable and persuasive evidence in 

a related proceeding before the Office or 

evidence that a district court can 

judicially notice. Where the Board 

exercises its discretion under this 

paragraph, the parties will have an 

opportunity to respond. 

Andrei Iancu, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28159 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0804; FRL–10017–97– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AG00 

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water 

Quality Criteria Applicable to Maine 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or Agency) is taking final action to 

amend the Federal regulations to 

withdraw human health criteria (HHC) 

for toxic pollutants applicable to waters 

in the State of Maine. EPA is taking this 

action because Maine adopted, and EPA 

approved, HHC that the Agency 

determined are protective of the 

designated uses for these waters. This 

final rule amends the Federal 

regulations to withdraw certain HHC 

applicable to Maine that the Agency had 

promulgated, as described in the 

September 3, 2020 proposed rule. The 

withdrawal of these certain federally 

promulgated HHC will enable Maine to 

implement its EPA-approved HHC, 

submitted on April 24, 2020, and 

approved on June 23, 2020, as 

applicable criteria for Clean Water Act 

(CWA or the Act) purposes. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 21, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0804. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Brundage, Office of Water, 

Standards and Health Protection 

Division (4305T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 566–1265; 

email address: brundage.jennifer@

epa.gov or visit https://www.epa.gov/ 

wqs-tech/federal-water-qualitystandards-applicable-maine. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

II. Background 

A. What are the applicable Federal 

statutory and regulatory requirements? 

B. What are the applicable Federal water 

quality criteria that EPA is withdrawing? 

C. Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking 

D. Effective Date of Withdrawal 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs) 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

K. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

L. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The State of Maine, as well as entities 

that discharge pollutants to waters of 

the United States under the State of 

Maine’s jurisdiction, such as industrial 

facilities, stormwater and combined 

sewer overflow (CSO) management 

districts, or publicly owned treatment 

works (POTWs), may be interested in 

this final rule because it withdraws 

Federal water quality standards (WQS) 

promulgated by EPA to allow the State 

of Maine’s WQS to become the 

applicable WQS for CWA purposes. 

Entities discharging in Maine’s waters 

and citizens concerned with water 

quality in Maine, including members of 

the federally recognized Indian tribes, 

may be interested in this final rule. If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

identified in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

A. What are the applicable Federal 

statutory and regulatory requirements? 

Consistent with the CWA, EPA’s WQS 

program assigns to states and authorized 

tribes the primary authority for adopting 

WQS.1 After states adopt WQS, they 

must be submitted to EPA for review 

and action in accordance with the CWA. 

The Act authorizes EPA to promulgate 

Federal WQS following EPA’s 

disapproval of state WQS or an 

Administrator’s determination that new 

or revised WQS are ‘‘necessary to meet 

the requirements of the Act.’’ 2

B. What are the applicable Federal 

water quality criteria that EPA is 

withdrawing? 

On December 19, 2016, EPA 

promulgated Federal HHC for 96 toxic 

pollutants for waters in Indian lands in 

Maine based on the Agency’s 2015 

disapproval of corresponding Stateestablished HHC and an Administrator’s 

determination that new or revised WQS 

were necessary to meet the requirements 

of the Act. 81 FR 92466 (December 19, 

2016). EPA also promulgated a phenol 

criterion to protect human health from 

consumption of water plus organisms 

for waters outside of Indian lands in 

Maine after disapproving the State’s 

phenol criterion in 2015 because it 

contained a mathematical error. 

EPA’s 2015 disapproval of the State’s 

HHC for waters in Indian lands was 

based on its decision that they were 

inadequate to protect the sustenance 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 82937 

3Letter from Dennis Deziel, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 1, to Gerald D. Reid, 

Commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection, ‘‘Re: Withdrawal of Certain of EPA’s 

February 2, 2015 Decisions Concerning Water 

Quality Standards for Waters in Indian Lands’’ 

(May 27, 2020). 

4 In 2019, Maine adopted, and EPA approved, a 

sustenance fishing designated use (SFDU) 

subcategory of its general fishing designated use for 

certain identified waters where sustenance fishing 

or increased fish consumption is or may be 

occurring. 

5Letter from Ken Moraff, Water Division Director, 

EPA Region 1, to Gerald D. Reid, Commissioner, 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 

‘‘Re: Review and Action on Maine Water Quality 

Standards, 06–096 Chapter 584’’ (June 23, 2020). 

6See e.g., Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water 

Quality Criteria Applicable to California: Lead, 

Chlorodibromomethane, and 

Dichlorobromomethane, 83 FR 52163 (October 16, 

2018); Water Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; Withdrawal, 79 

FR 57447 (September 25, 2014); Withdrawal of 

Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable 

to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico, 78 FR 

20252 (April 4, 2013). 

fishing designated uses that EPA 

interpreted and approved for waters in 

Indian lands in the same 2015 action. 

On May 27, 2020, after a thorough 

review of the applicable provisions of 

the CWA, implementing regulations and 

longstanding EPA guidance, EPA 

withdrew its 2015 interpretation and 

improper approvals of the alleged 

sustenance fishing designated uses and 

corresponding disapprovals of Maine’s 

HHC that flowed from the flawed 

designated use determinations.3 Also on 

that date, EPA approved Maine’s general 

fishing designated use for waters in 

Indian lands without the interpretation 

that it means ‘‘sustenance fishing.’’ 4

On April 24, 2020, the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

submitted new and revised WQS in 

accordance with CWA Section 303(c). 

The new and revised provisions 

included HHC. On June 23, 2020, EPA 

approved the State’s new and revised 

HHC as consistent with the 

requirements of the CWA and 

applicable Federal regulations.5 There 

are two sets of HHC in the State’s newly 

approved criteria. One set protects the 

statewide general ‘‘fishing’’ designated 

use, and the other set protects the 

State’s new ‘‘sustenance fishing’’ 

designated use subcategory that applies 

to specifically identified waters where 

sustenance fishing is or may be 

occurring. Between these two sets of 

HHC, all the waters covered by EPA’s 

promulgated Federal HHC for toxic 

pollutants in 2016 are addressed. The 

new and revised HHC also address all 

the toxic pollutants for which EPA 

promulgated Federal HHC in 2016. All 

of EPA’s prior decisions and action 

letters related to these Agency actions 

are available in docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0804 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

As provided in 40 CFR 131.21(c), 

federally promulgated WQS that are 

more stringent than EPA-approved state 

WQS remain applicable for purposes of 

the CWA until EPA withdraws the 

Federal WQS. EPA’s 2016 federally 

promulgated HHC are as stringent or 

more stringent than the State’s newly 

approved HHC. Accordingly, EPA is 

amending the Federal regulations to 

withdraw those federally promulgated 

HHC for which the Agency has 

approved Maine’s corresponding HHC. 

EPA’s withdrawal of federally 

promulgated HHC following approval of 

corresponding state HHC is consistent 

with the Federal and state roles 

contemplated by the CWA. Consistent 

with the cooperative federalism 

structure of the CWA, once EPA 

approves state WQS addressing the 

same pollutants for which EPA has 

promulgated Federal WQS, it is 

incumbent on EPA to withdraw the 

Federal WQS to enable EPA-approved 

state WQS to become the applicable 

WQS for CWA purposes. This final rule 

will allow Maine to implement its EPAapproved WQS. This final rule is 

consistent with EPA’s withdrawal of 

other federally promulgated WQS 

following the Agency’s approval of 

state-adopted WQS.6

This final rule amends Federal 

regulations to withdraw all Federal HHC 

for waters in Indian lands and the 

phenol criterion for waters outside of 

Indian lands promulgated for Maine in 

December 2016 at 40 CFR 131.43. All 

other federally promulgated criteria at 

40 CFR 131.43 remain in effect. 

EPA did not make any changes in 

response to the comments received on 

the proposed rulemaking. EPA received 

eight unique comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. EPA also held two public, 

online hearings on the proposed 

rulemaking (September 30, 2020, and 

October 1, 2020). EPA received no 

comments during these hearings. Brief 

summaries of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided in the next 

section. As noted previously, a full 

accounting of the comments and the 

Agency’s responses can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

C. Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking 

i. Comments in Support of EPA’s 

Proposal To Withdraw the Federal HHC 

EPA received several comments in 

support of the proposal to withdraw the 

Federal HHC. EPA appreciates the 

comments in support of this action. 

Several of these commenters also urged 

EPA to withdraw other federally 

promulgated WQS, specifically relating 

to mixing zones and aquatic life criteria 

for certain waters, which are not related 

to the HHC for toxic pollutants that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. EPA’s 

proposal solicited comments only on 

withdrawing the Federal HHC for toxic 

pollutants and these comments are 

outside the scope of this proceeding. 

ii. Comments in Opposition to EPA’s 

Proposal To Withdraw the Federal HHC 

EPA received two comments in 

opposition to EPA’s proposal to 

withdraw the Federal HHC. Both 

comments object to the proposal based 

on the stringency, scope, and 

enforceability of the HHC that would 

remain in place after the withdrawal, 

i.e., the State of Maine’s federally 

approved HHC. The protectiveness of 

the State’s federally approved HHC, 

however, is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. EPA’s June 23, 2020, 

approval of the State’s HHC was a 

separate, final agency action. EPA’s 

rationale for this approval is provided in 

detail in the attachment to the approval 

letter. More information on EPA’s action 

to approve Maine’s HHC can be 

accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2020-06/documents/ 

hhc_approval_decision_final.pdf. 

Given that EPA approved state HHC 

that correspond to the federally 

approved HHC, the Agency is thus 

withdrawing its Federal criteria so that 

the state criteria are the applicable WQS 

for CWA purposes. See 40 CFR 

131.21(c). 

D. Effective Date of Withdrawal 

Section 553(d)(3) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final rules 

shall not become effective until 30 days 

after publication in the Federal Register 

‘‘except . . . as otherwise provided by 

the agency for good cause.’’ The purpose 

of this provision is to ‘‘give affected 

parties a reasonable time to adjust their 

behavior before the final rule takes 

effect.’’ Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. 

Commc’n Comm’n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 

(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States 

v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th 

Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). 

Thus, in determining whether good 

cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, 

an agency should ‘‘balance the necessity 

for immediate implementation against 

principles of fundamental fairness 

which require that all affected persons 

be afforded a reasonable amount of time 

to prepare for the effective date of its 

ruling.’’ Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. In 

this case, EPA has determined that there 

82938 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

is good cause for waiving the 30-day 

delayed effective date because the final 

rule does not impose any new 

requirement on any affected entity, 

rather it withdraws Federal WQS 

applicable to waters in the State of 

Maine, thus allowing Maine’s WQS to 

take effect for CWA purposes. Because 

by itself this final rule does not impose 

new requirements on affected entities, it 

is not necessary to provide affected 

entities time to adjust to this final rule. 

Having this withdrawal take effect upon 

publication in the Federal Register will 

help provide immediate clarity for the 

State of Maine as it proceeds with 

creating its latest list of impaired of 

waters under CWA Section 303(d), as 

well as in issuing NPDES permits, 

developing TMDLs, and issuing water 

quality certifications under CWA 

Section 401. For these reasons, the 

Agency finds that good cause exists 

under APA Section 553(d)(3) to make 

this rule withdrawing Federal WQS in 

Maine effective immediately upon 

publication. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs) 

This action is a deregulatory action 

under Executive Order 13771. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information-collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act because it is 

administratively withdrawing Federal 

requirements that are no longer needed 

in Maine. It does not include any 

information collection, reporting, or 

recordkeeping requirements. The OMB 

has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 40 

CFR part 131 and has assigned OMB 

control number 2040–0049. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Agency certifies that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. This action will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. As this action 

withdraws certain federally 

promulgated criteria, the action imposes 

no enforceable duty on any state, local, 

or tribal governments, or the private 

sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This rule imposes 

no regulatory requirements or costs on 

any state or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. In the State of 

Maine, there are four federally 

recognized Indian tribes represented by 

five tribal governments. As a result of 

the unique jurisdictional provisions of 

the Maine Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, the State has jurisdiction for setting 

WQS for all waters in Indian lands in 

Maine. This rule will have no effect on 

that jurisdictional arrangement. This 

final rule affects federally recognized 

Indian tribes in Maine because it 

changes the WQS applicable to all 

waters in Indian lands. 

EPA initiated consultation with 

federally recognized tribal officials 

under EPA’s Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian tribes early in 

the process of developing this rule to 

allow meaningful and timely input into 

its development. A summary of that 

consultation is provided in ‘‘Summary 

of Tribal Consultations Regarding Water 

Quality Standards Decisions on Remand 

Applicable to Waters in Indian Lands 

within Maine,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the Agency 

has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in Section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk 

that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

This final rule does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations) 

The human health or environmental 

risk addressed by this action will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations. EPA has 

previously determined that Maine’s 

state-adopted and EPA-approved criteria 

are protective of human health. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Indianslands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 131 

as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 82939 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

§ 131.43 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 131.43 by removing 

paragraphs (a) and (j) and redesignating 

paragraphs (b) through (i) as paragraphs 

(a) through (h). 

[FR Doc. 2020–26998 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0233; FRL–10017–30] 

2,4-D; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of 2,4-D in or on 

intermediate wheatgrass bran, forage, 

grain, and straw and sesame seed. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 21, 2020. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 19, 2021, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0233, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (703) 305–7090; 

email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ 

text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2019–0233 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before February 19, 2021. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2019–0233, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of September 

30, 2020 (85 FR 61681) (FRL–10014–74), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of 

pesticide petitions (an amended PP 

9E8745 and PP 0E8848) by IR–4, IR–4 

Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State 

University of New Jersey, 500 College 

Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 

08540. This September 30, 2020 Notice 

supersedes the previous document the 

Agency published notifying the public 

of the filing of the IR–4 petition 

PP9E8745 in the Federal Register of 

August 30, 2019 (84 FR 45702) (FRL– 

9998–15). 

The petitions requested that 40 CFR 

part 180 be amended by establishing 

tolerances for residues of 2,4-D in or on 

the raw agricultural commodities 

wheatgrass, intermediate, bran at 4 parts 

per million (ppm); wheatgrass, 

intermediate, grain at 2 ppm; 

wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 50 

ppm, and wheatgrass, intermediate, 

forage at 25 ppm (PP 9E8745) and 

sesame, seed at 0.05 ppm (PP 0E8848). 

That document referenced summaries of 

the petitions prepared by Nufarm and 

PBI Gordon, the registrants, which are