Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82995 

1Missouri’s June 14, 2019 letter incorrectly states 

that the Kansas City area was designated as a 

nonattainment area for the 1979 ozone NAAQS in 

1978. 

proposing the guidance, in the proposed 

guidance document. The proposed 

guidance is available at https://

sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/q-and-achildren-with-disabilities-privateschools-parentally-placed/. The 

proposed guidance is a ‘‘significant 

guidance document’’ under Executive 

Order 13891. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

contact person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format. The Department 

will provide the requestor with an 

accessible format that may include Rich 

Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), 

a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc, or 

other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or portable document format (PDF). 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Mark Schultz, 

Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services 

Administration.Delegated the authority to 

performthe functions and duties of the 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27872 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0620; FRL–10017– 

81–Region 7] 

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal 

of Control of Emissions From Solvent 

Cleanup Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Missouri on January 15, 2019, and 

supplemented by letter on June 14, 

2019. Missouri requests that the EPA 

remove a rule related to control of 

emissions from the solvent cleanup 

operations in the Kansas City, Missouri 

area from its SIP. This removal does not 

have an adverse effect on air quality. 

The EPA’s proposed approval of this 

rule revision is in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 20, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2020–0620to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Stone, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7714; 

email address: stone.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. Background 

IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s 

SIP revision request? 

A. 10 CSR 10–2.215 Applied to Existing 

Sources 

B. 10 CSR 10–2.215 was Expected To Be 

Solely Applicable to the Ford Motor 

Company’s Kansas City Assembly Plant 

C. 10 CSR 10–2.215 Does Not Reduce VOC 

Emissions and May Be Removed From the 

SIP 

V. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

VI. What action is the EPA taking? 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020– 

0620 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. What is Being Addressed in this 

Document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

removal of 10 Code of State Regulations 

(CSR) 10–2.215, Control of Emissions 

from Solvent Cleanup Operations, from 

the Missouri SIP. 

According to the June 14, 2019 letter 

from the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, available in the 

docket for this proposed action, 

Missouri rescinded the rule because 

there are no sources subject to the rule, 

and the rule is no longer necessary for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

1979, 1997, or 2008 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

Ozone. 

III. Background 

The EPA established a 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 

1971). On March 3, 1978, the EPA 

designated Clay, Platte and Jackson 

counties (hereinafter referred to in this 

document as the ‘‘Kanas City Area’’) in 

nonattainment of the 1971 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS,1 as required by the CAA 

Amendments of 1977. 43 FR 8962 

(March 3, 1978). On February 8, 1979, 

the EPA revised the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, referred to as the 1979 ozone 

NAAQS. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

On February 20, 1985, the EPA notified 

Missouri that the SIP was substantially 

inadequate (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘SIP Call’’) to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Kansas City Area. See 50 

FR 26198 (July 25, 1985). 

82996 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

2The EPA agrees with Missouri’s interpretation of 

CAA section 172(c)(1) in regards to whether RACT 

is required for existing sources, but also notes that 

the State regulation establishing RACT may apply 

to new sources as well, dependent upon the State 

regulation’s language. 

To address the SIP Call, Missouri 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

on May 21, 1986, and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) control regulations on 

December 18, 1987. See 54 FR 10322 

(March 13, 1989) and 54 FR 46232 

(November 2, 1989). The EPA 

subsequently approved the revised 

control strategy for the Kansas City 

Area. See id. 

The EPA redesignated the Kansas City 

Area to attainment of the 1979 1-hour 

ozone standard and approved the ozone 

maintenance plan on July 23, 1992. 57 

FR 27939 (June 23, 1992). Pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA, the first 10- 

year maintenance period for the 1-hour 

ozone standard began on July 23, 1992, 

the effective date of the redesignation 

approval. 

In 1995, the Kansas City area violated 

the 1979 1-hour ozone standard. 

Missouri revised the control strategy 

and contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan, which was approved 

on June 24, 2002. 67 FR 20036 (April 24, 

2002). The revised control strategy 

included a newly promulgated RACT 

rule, 10 CSR 10–2.215, Control of 

Emissions from Solvent Cleanup 

Operations. 

On April 30, 2004, the EPA published 

a final rule in the Federal Register 

stating the 1979 ozone NAAQS would 

no longer apply (i.e., would be revoked) 

for an area one year after the effective 

date of the area’s designation for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23951 (April 

30, 2004). The Kansas City Area was 

designated as an unclassifiable area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective June 15, 2004. See id. 

However, on May 3, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule designating the 

Kansas City Area as an attainment area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on new monitoring data. See 70 

FR 22801 (May 3, 2005). The effective 

date of the revocation of the 1979 1-hour 

ozone standard for the Kansas City Area 

was June 15, 2005. See 70 FR 44470 

(August 3, 2005). Missouri achieved the 

required maintenance of the 1979 1- 

hour ozone standard in 2014. 

As noted above, 10 CSR 10–2.215, 

Control of Emissions from Solvent 

Cleanup Operations, was approved into 

the Missouri SIP as a RACT rule, 

effective May 24, 2002. 67 FR 20036 

(April 24, 2002). At the time that the 

rule was approved into the SIP, 10 CSR 

10–2.215 applied to any person in the 

Clay, Jackson and Platte Counties in 

Missouri that performs or allows the 

performance of any cleaning operation 

involving the use of a VOC solvent or 

solvent solution that emitted over 500 

pounds per day of VOCs. The rule stated 

that once a source was subject to the 

rule, it would remain subject to the rule 

even if actual emissions drop below the 

500 pounds per day of VOCs 

applicability level. 

The rule also contains a list of 

operations that are exempt from the 

rule: 

1. Cold cleaner; 

2. Open top vapor degreaser; 

3. Conveyorized cold cleaners; 

4. Conveyorized vapor degreaser; 

5. Nonmanufacturing area cleaning. 

Nonmanufacturing areas include 

cafeterias, laboratories, pilot facilities, 

restrooms, and office buildings; 

6. Cleaning operations for which there 

has been made a best available control 

technology, reasonably available control 

technology, or lowest achievable 

emission rate determination; and 

7. Cleaning operations which are 

subject to the Aerospace National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Standards source category, 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. 

By letter dated January 15, 2019, 

Missouri requested that the EPA remove 

10 CSR 10–2.215 from the SIP. Section 

110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from 

approving a SIP revision that interferes 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP), or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. The 

State supplemented its SIP revision 

with a June 14, 2019 letter in order to 

address the requirements of section 

110(l) of the CAA. 

IV. What is the EPA’s analysis of 

Missouri’s SIP revision request? 

A. 10 CSR 10–2.215 Applied to 

Existing Sources 

In its June 14, 2019 letter, Missouri 

states that it intended its RACT rules, 

such as 10 CSR 10–2.215, to solely 

apply to existing sources in accordance 

with section 172(c)(1) of the CAA.2

Missouri states that although the 

applicability section of 10 CSR 10–2.215 

states that the rule applies to all persons 

who perform or allow the performance 

of cleaning operations that emit over 

500 pounds per day of VOCs in Clay, 

Jackson and Platte Counties, the rule 

applied only to existing sources. 

The EPA notes that the rule required 

a 30% reduction in plant-wide 

industrial VOC cleaning solvent 

emissions by May 1, 2003, based on 

emissions in 1997 and 1998. This 

provides support for Missouri’s 

assertion that the rule was intended to 

apply to existing sources, despite the 

language in the rule that states that it is 

applicable to any solvent cleaning 

operation in Clay, Jackson and Platte 

counties that emit VOCs above the 

applicability threshold. 

B. 10 CSR 10–2.215 Was Expected To 

Be Solely Applicable to the Ford Motor 

Company’s Kansas City Assembly Plant 

Missouri states that at the time of the 

rule’s promulgation, the state expected 

that the rule would apply to a single 

existing source, the Ford Motor 

Company’s Kansas City Assembly Plant 

(hereinafter ‘‘Ford facility’’). Missouri 

states that this is supported by a fiscal 

note in its rulemaking record that 

indicates that the rule applies to one 

automobile manufacturer. 

The EPA has reviewed the April 16, 

2001 Missouri Register, Vol. 26, No. 8, 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action, and notes that the Ford Motor 

Company commented on Missouri’s 

promulgation of the rule concerning the 

costs of the rule. In addition, Missouri’s 

1998 revision to the Kansas City 

Maintenance SIP for the 1979 Ozone 

NAAQS (hereinafter ‘‘1998 Revision’’), 

available in the docket for today’s 

action, indicates that one major source 

that would be affected by the solvent 

cleaning regulation was the Ford Motor 

Company in Kansas City. The 1998 

Revision states that the Ford facility 

reported 909.5 tons of VOC emissions in 

1994, and estimated that the rule would 

reduce VOC emissions by 30%, or 272.8 

tons per year in the Kansas City area. 

Based upon Missouri’s rulemaking 

history associated with promulgation of 

10 CSR 10–2.215, and the 1998 

Revision, the EPA agrees that the Ford 

facility was the only source expected to 

be subject to the rule. 

C. 10 CSR 10–2.215 Does Not Reduce 

VOC Emissions and May Be Removed 

From the SIP 

The EPA notes that the text of 10 CSR 

10–2.215 states that once a source 

exceeds the applicability level of 500 

pounds of VOC emissions per day, it 

remains subject to the rule even if actual 

emissions drop below the applicability 

level of the rule. However, this does not 

prohibit Missouri from rescinding the 

rule if it can demonstrate that the 

rescission of the rule does not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP), or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, as 

required by Section 110(l) of the CAA. 

The EPA has reviewed the Ford 

facility’s 2008 Operating Permit number 

OP2008–044, and the 2015 Operating 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82997 

3EPA’s latest approval of Missouri’s NSR 

permitting program rule was published in the 

Federal Register on October 11, 2016. 81 FR 70025. 

4 In accordance 40 CFR 50.19(b), the 2015 8-hour 

primary O3 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality 

monitoring site when 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3

concentration is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm, 

as determined in accordance with appendix U to 40 

CFR part 50. 

5The monitoring data was reported, quality 

assured, and certified in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 58. 

6RFP is not applicable to the Kansas City Area 

because the area is in attainment of all applicable 

ozone standards. 

Permit number OP2014–035, available 

in the docket for this proposed action. 

The operating permits do not list any 

solvent cleaning operations at the 

facility that are subject to 10 CSR 10– 

2.215, Control of Emissions From 

Solvent Metal Cleaning, and state that 

the rule is not applicable to the Ford 

facility. The Operating Permit states that 

emission point (EP) 42’s miscellaneous 

solvent use related to maintenance 

activities including non-manufacturing 

area cleaning, facility painting, and 

other activities at the facility is exempt 

pursuant to 10 CSR 2.215(1)(C). 10 CSR 

2.215(1)(C) exempts nonmanufacturing 

area cleaning which include cafeterias, 

laboratories, pilot facilities, restrooms, 

and office buildings. 

The documentation submitted by 

Missouri provides evidence that at least 

at the time that 10 CSR 10–2.215 was 

proposed, both Missouri and Ford 

expected that the Ford facility would be 

subject to the rule, and Missouri 

expected that the Ford facility would be 

the only source subject to the rule. 

According to Ford’s Emissions 

Inventory Questionnaire (EIQ), VOC 

emissions from EP–42 were 428.36 tons 

in 1997, and 239.46 tons in 1998. 

However, before 10 CSR 10–2.215 was 

promulgated, Ford reduced its VOC 

emissions from EP–42 to 8.18 tons in 

2000, and emissions from EP–42 have 

since remained well below the 

applicability threshold of the rule, such 

that Ford was never subject to the rule’s 

requirements. Therefore, the EPA agrees 

that the rule does not limit or reduce 

emissions of VOCs from any source in 

the Kansas City Area. 

Missouri’s June 14, 2019 letter states 

that any new sources or major 

modifications of existing sources are 

subject to new source review (NSR) 

permitting. Under NSR, a new major 

source or major modification of an 

existing source with a (potential to emit) 

PTE of 250 tons per year (tpy) or more 

of any NAAQS pollutant is required to 

obtain a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit when the 

area is in attainment or unclassifiable, 

which requires an analysis of Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

in addition to an air quality analysis and 

an additional impacts analysis. Sources 

with a PTE greater than 100 tpy, but less 

than 250 tpy, are required to obtain a 

minor permit in accordance with 

Missouri’s New Source Review 

permitting program, which is approved 

into the SIP.3 The EPA agrees with this 

analysis. 

Missouri’s June 14, 2019 letter also 

includes information concerning ozone 

air quality in the Kansas City area from 

1996 through 2018 that indicates a 

downward trend in monitored ozone 

design values. Missouri states that 

despite promulgation of more stringent 

ozone NAAQS in 1997, 2008 and 2015, 

the Kansas City area continues to 

monitor attainment. The EPA has 

confirmed that certified ambient air 

quality data for Kansas City Area as 

monitored at the Rocky Creek, Clay 

County state and local air monitoring 

station is compliant with the most 

recent ozone standard- the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.4 The 2016–2018 design value 

for that monitor is 70 parts per million.5

As stated above, Section 172(c)(1) of 

the CAA requires RACT for existing 

sources. Because Missouri has 

demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 

10–2.215 will not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, RFP 6 or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA because there are no existing 

sources that are subject to the rule, and 

therefore removal of the rule will not 

cause VOC emissions to increase, the 

EPA proposes to approve removal of 10 

CSR 10–2.215 from the SIP. 

V. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The State submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. The State provided 

public notice on this SIP revision from 

February 28, 2018, to April 5, 2018 and 

received five comments from the EPA 

that related to Missouri’s lack of an 

adequate demonstration that the rule 

could be removed from the SIP in 

accordance with section 110(l) of the 

CAA. Missouri’s June 14, 2019 letter 

addressed the EPA’s comments. In 

addition, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

VI. What action is the EPA taking? 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Missouri’s request to rescind 10 CSR 

2.215 from the SIP because the rule 

applied to a single source that has 

permanently ceased operations and 

because the rule was not applicable to 

additional sources, it no longer serves to 

reduce emissions. Additionally, the 

maintenance period for the 1979 ozone 

NAAQS for the Kansas City Area ended 

in 2014 and the area continues to 

monitor attainment of the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS. Any new sources or major 

modifications of existing sources in the 

Kansas City Area are subject to NSR 

permitting. We are processing this as a 

proposed action because we are 

soliciting comments on this proposed 

action. Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to amend regulatory text that 

includes incorporation by reference. As 

described in the proposed amendments 

to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the 

EPA is proposing to remove provisions 

of the EPA-Approved Missouri 

Regulation from the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan, which is 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

82998 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTA) because this 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

James Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by removing the entry 

‘‘10–2.215’’ under the heading ‘‘Chapter 

2—Air Quality Standards and Air 

Pollution Control Regulations for the 

Kansas City Metropolitan Area’’. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28121 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0053; FRL–10016–93] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities (October 2020) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 20, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petitions (PP) 

of interest as shown in the body of this 

document, 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 

Confidential Business Information (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. 

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 (RD) (7505P), main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090, email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Charles 

Smith, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), 

main telephone number: (703) 305– 

7090, email address: BPPDFRNotices@

epa.gov. The mailing address for the 

contact person is: Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

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. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

comments.html. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse