Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 39959 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 890 

Medical devices, Physical medicine 

devices. 

Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 

21 CFR part 890 be amended as follows: 

PART 890—PHYSICAL MEDICINE 

DEVICES 

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 890 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 

360j, 371. 

2. Section 890.5290 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 890.5290 Shortwave diathermy. 

* * * * * 

(c) Date PMA or notice of completion 

of PDP is required. A PMA or notice of 

completion of a PDP is required to be 

filed with the Food and Drug 

Administration on or before [date 90 

days after date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register], for any 

shortwave diathermy for all other uses 

(as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section) that was in commercial 

distribution before May 28, 1976, or that 

has, on or before [date 90 days after date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], been found to be 

substantially equivalent to any 

shortwave diathermy for all other uses 

(as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section) that was in commercial 

distribution before May 28, 1976. Any 

other shortwave diathermy for all other 

uses (as described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section) shall have an approved 

PMA or declared completed PDP in 

effect before being placed in commercial 

distribution. 

Dated: June 27, 2012. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16487 Filed 7–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0887; FRL–9696–1] 

RIN 2060–AN40 

Draft Guidance To Implement 

Requirements for the Treatment of Air 

Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the EPA has posted its draft non-binding 

guidance titled, Draft Guidance to 

Implement Requirements for the 

Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring 

Data Influenced by Exceptional Events 

and associated attachments, on the 

agency’s Internet Web site. The EPA 

invites public comments on this 

guidance document and plans to issue 

an updated version of the guidance after 

reviewing timely submitted comments. 

The EPA intends to hold a conference 

call to provide interested stakeholders 

with an overview of the Exceptional 

Events draft guidance. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2012. Please refer 

to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the comment 

period. 

ADDRESSES: Access to the draft 

guidance: Please see the EPA’s Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/ 

exevents.htm for additional details on 

the draft non-binding guidance titled, 

Draft Guidance to Implement 

Requirements for the Treatment of Air 

Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events and associated 

attachments and the conference call for 

interested stakeholders. 

Comments: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0887, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0887. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0887. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0887. 

• Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0887, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please 

include a total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0887. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket Center’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0887. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA is unable to read 

your comment and cannot contact you 

for clarification due to technical 

difficulties, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters, avoid any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. 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 Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

W. Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, Mail Code 

C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone (919) 541–5432, email 

at palma.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Instructions for Submitting Public 

Comments 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

www.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 the 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. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Mail Code C404–02, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–0880, email at 

morales.roberto@epa.gov, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0887. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify this notice by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number in the guidance. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

The purpose of this document is to 

solicit public comments on the EPA’s 

recently posted draft non-binding 

guidance on the implementation of the 

March 22, 2007, Exceptional Events 

Rule (72 FR at 13560). These documents 

are available online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm 

or within the associated docket, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0887. 

The draft guidance consists of an 

overview document, titled Draft 

Guidance to Implement Requirements 

for the Treatment of Air Quality 

Monitoring Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events and its attachments: 

Attachment 1, Draft Exceptional Events 

Rule Frequently Asked Questions; 

Attachment 2, Draft Guidance on the 

Preparation of Demonstrations in 

Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient 

Air Quality Data Affected by High 

Winds under the Exceptional Events 

Rule (High Winds Guidance Document); 

and Attachment 3, Request for 

Comments on the Draft Guidance 

Documents on the Implementation of 

the Exceptional Events Rule. Together, 

these documents clarify key provisions 

and respond to questions and issues that 

have arisen since the EPA promulgated 

the Treatment of Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events; Final Rule (72 FR at 

13560), known as the Exceptional 

Events Rule (EER), pursuant to the 2005 

amendment of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 319. 

The EPA provided previous versions 

of these draft guidance documents to 

state, local, and tribal agencies, and to 

other parties as requested, in May of 

2011 to solicit preliminary comments. 

The EPA has prepared the document 

Responses to Significant First-Round 

Comments on the Draft Guidance 

Documents on the Implementation of 

the Exceptional Events Rule (the 

Response to Comments document), to 

track these preliminary comments and 

the EPA’s responses. 

During this preliminary review 

period, the EPA received numerous 

comments, some of which the EPA has 

incorporated into the revised draft 

guidance documents. For example, the 

EPA has added an optional prospective 

controls analysis process and revised 

the discussion of the optional High 

Wind Action Plan; both of these are 

voluntary analyses that can facilitate 

agreement between states/local 

agencies/tribes and the EPA as to what 

measures constitute ‘‘reasonable’’ 

controls in advance of an actual event. 

Once the plans have gone through a 

notice and comment process at the 

state/local/tribal level and the EPA has 

approved these plans, the EPA generally 

anticipates that they will be effective for 

three years. Both of these approaches 

are described in more detail in the 

revised, draft High Winds Guidance 

document. The EPA solicits feedback on 

the anticipated use and functionality of 

these plans. Initial commenter feedback 

also asked the EPA to identify timelines 

for steps in the exceptional event 

submittal and review process. In the 

draft guidance documents, the EPA 

identifies suggested review and 

response timeframes, and indicates 

willingness to work with agencies on 

these timeframes to the extent the 

mandatory timing of the EPA regulatory 

actions allows. 

The EPA has also begun applying the 

principles in the draft guidance 

documents as we receive exceptional 

event submittal packages. For example, 

the EPA’s Region 9 office worked with 

agencies in Arizona to incorporate 

approaches presented in the draft 

guidance documents into a consolidated 

exceptional events demonstration 

package that addresses numerous 

exceedances of the PM10 standard. The 

EPA hopes that, once finalized, much of 

the information included in this 

streamlined exceptional events 

demonstration submittal could be 

transferable and serve as a model for 

future events for both Arizona and other 

areas experiencing high wind dust 

events. 

While the EPA incorporated some 

comments into the revised draft 

guidance documents, the EPA did not 

incorporate all aspects of commenter 

feedback. For example, multiple 

commenters suggested that Exceptional 

Events Rule revisions are the 

appropriate mechanism to implement 

some of the approaches described in the 

guidance documents. The EPA 

maintains that guidance documents do 

not change, increase, or decrease rule 

requirements; they assist by providing 

information and illustrations for better 

understanding of and compliance with 

the rule. The EPA is deferring a decision 

on whether to revise the Exceptional 

Events Rule. 

Initial feedback on the draft guidance 

documents also raised the following 

questions on which the EPA is 

specifically seeking comment: 

• The EPA has developed draft 

exceptional event implementation 

guidance with the goal of establishing 

clear expectations to enable affected 

agencies to better manage resources as 

they prepare the documentation 

required under the EER. These draft 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 39961 

guidance documents identify 

mechanisms (e.g., demonstration 

prioritization, review time lines, High 

Wind Action Plans) to streamline the 

demonstration development, submittal, 

and review process. The EPA seeks 

comment regarding other specific, 

broadly applicable, streamlining 

mechanisms that the EPA could 

incorporate into the exceptional event 

implementation process. 

• The EPA has modified the 

exceptional events Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm 

to include additional links to tools, such 

as the DataFed Web site, that submitting 

agencies may use in the development of 

their demonstration submittals. The 

EPA has also posted exceptional event 

demonstrations that have already been 

reviewed and acted upon by the EPA. 

The EPA solicits feedback regarding 

other web-based information, links, 

tools, or methodologies that we can 

similarly post on our Web site. 

• In the draft exceptional events 

guidance documents, the EPA defines 

the high wind threshold as the 

minimum threshold wind speed capable 

of overwhelming reasonable controls on 

anthropogenic sources (i.e., capable of 

causing significant dust emissions from 

controlled sources) or causing emissions 

from natural undisturbed areas. The 

EPA further notes that this area-specific 

threshold, along with the submitter’s 

analysis of implemented reasonable 

controls and other factors, helps inform 

the analysis of the ‘‘not reasonably 

controllable or preventable’’ criterion. 

The EPA intends to allow air agencies 

to use wind data from a multitude of 

sources in the development of high 

wind thresholds. The EPA has 

identified several sources of local wind 

speed data including the National 

Weather Service, the National Climate 

Center, and local air monitoring 

stations. In addition, air agencies may 

use models such as Fifth Generation 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Mode (MM5), Weather 

Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) 

and North American Mesoscale Model 

(NAM), to develop local wind speed 

data. The EPA solicits feedback on 

additional available sources of wind 

data and their applicability in informing 

local high wind analyses. 

• As previously mentioned, 

demonstrations for high wind dust 

events necessarily include wind speed 

analyses. Generally, the EPA will accept 

that high winds could be the cause of a 

high 24-hour average PM10 or PM2.5

concentration if there was at least one 

full hour in which the hourly average 

wind speed was above area-specific 

high wind threshold. Potential issues 

arise when determining the hourly 

average wind speed if wind speeds are 

not recorded at specified intervals 

throughout each hour. While some 

sources of wind speed data use hourly 

averages, other data sources employ 

1–5 minute (‘‘short-period’’) averages. 

When the available wind speed data 

consist of only the wind speed during 

a fixed short period of each hour (e.g., 

the first or last 5 minutes of each hour) 

or the wind speed during the variable 

short period when wind speed was at its 

maximum during the hour, the EPA will 

generally accept that the hourly average 

wind speed was above the threshold if 

the reported short-period wind speed 

was above the threshold. Where wind 

speed is recorded at specified intervals 

throughout each hour, agencies should 

use all recorded data to calculate the 

hourly average wind speed. 

AERMINUTE, a preprocessor to 

AERMOD that takes short-period wind 

speed observations and calculates an 

hourly average wind, can assist in this 

calculation. AERMINUTE data, or other 

sub-hourly data with a resolution equal 

or greater than 5 minutes, can be fed 

into AERMET, the AERMOD 

meteorological processor, to get a userfriendly output. The EPA solicits 

additional feedback and tools to convert 

1–5 minute wind speed data to hourly 

averages. 

• Within the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS), monitoring agencies can 

use two types of data validation, or data 

qualifier, codes: the Request Exclusion 

flags (R) and the Informational Only 

flags (I). Agencies should use the I series 

flags when identifying informational 

data and the R series flags to identify 

data points for which the agency 

intends to request an exceptional event 

exclusion and the EPA’s concurrence. 

Given that the EPA can act/concur only 

on R flags, some agencies have 

questioned the utility of I flags. Do AQS 

users find I flags in AQS useful? If so, 

how do users employ these flags? 

• In response to comments received 

and in an effort to streamline the 

development of high wind 

demonstrations, the EPA has added an 

optional ‘‘Prospective Controls 

Analysis’’ process by which states, local 

agencies, and tribes can voluntarily 

provide information on attainment 

status, identify natural and 

anthropogenic windblown dust sources 

and emissions, provide the status of SIP 

submittals (if applicable), and identify 

the wind speed up to which the 

collective windblown dust controls are 

expected to be effective. This optional 

analysis can facilitate agreement 

between states/local agencies/tribes and 

the EPA as to what constitutes 

‘‘reasonable’’ controls in advance of an 

actual event. The EPA has also added an 

optional ‘‘High Wind Action Plan’’ that 

states/local agencies/tribes can use to 

document current in-place controls, 

document controls on new sources that 

need reasonable controls for future 

events, and/or document current and/or 

planned mitigation measures. Both of 

these approaches are described in more 

detail in the revised draft High Winds 

Guidance document. The EPA 

anticipates that air agencies would 

submit the prospective controls analysis 

in advance of or with a demonstration 

package and similarly expects that air 

agencies would submit the High Wind 

Action Plan following the EPA’s initial 

review of a demonstration package. The 

EPA recognizes that the information 

contained in the prospective controls 

analysis and the High Wind Action Plan 

is likely to overlap. The EPA solicits 

feedback on the anticipated use and 

functionality of these plans. 

Specifically, the EPA requests that 

commenters identify: (1) Specific 

elements in the prospective controls 

analysis and High Wind Action Plan 

that are useful, (2) whether these 

concepts should be combined or kept 

separate and (3) whether the flexibility 

to implement needed dust controls 

provided by the High Wind Action Plan 

as a voluntary alternative to the 

traditional regulatory nonattainment 

designation process is helpful. 

• In Table 3 of the revised draft High 

Winds Guidance document, the EPA 

identifies example technical analyses 

that air agencies should consider when 

preparing their high wind dust event 

controls analysis to demonstrate the not 

reasonably controllable or preventable 

criterion. The EPA solicits comment on 

the identified analyses and any 

additional technical analyses that air 

agencies could use to demonstrate that 

the wind exceeded an identified high 

wind threshold and that the exceedance 

was caused by emissions that were not 

reasonably controllable. 

• The EPA acknowledges that certain 

extreme exceptional event cases may 

require more limited demonstration 

packages. Whether a particular event 

should be considered ‘‘extreme’’ for this 

purpose depends on the type and 

severity of the event, pollutant 

concentration, spatial extent, temporal 

extent, and proximity of the event to the 

violating monitor. Several 

meteorological phenomena that could 

be considered extreme events include 

hurricanes, tornadoes, haboobs, and 

catastrophic volcanic eruptions. The 

EPA addresses ‘‘extreme’’ high wind 

dust events in the draft Q&A document, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

but solicits comment on whether and 

how specific events of various types 

should be considered to be ‘‘extreme.’’ 

With this document, the EPA is 

announcing the availability of revised 

draft guidance, along with examples of 

approved demonstrations on the EPA’s 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

analysis/exevents.htm. The EPA is 

providing the draft guidance to facilitate 

review of these materials by outside 

parties and to help ensure that the 

EPA’s final guidance provides an 

efficient and effective process to make 

determinations regarding air quality 

data affected by events. The EPA notes 

that these draft guidance documents and 

the exceptional events Web site present 

examples to illustrate specific points. 

The example analyses and level of rigor 

are not necessarily required for all 

demonstrations. 

After receiving timely submitted 

public comments on the draft guidance, 

the EPA plans to issue updated nonbinding guidance. In addition, the EPA 

will continue to work closely with state, 

local, and tribal agencies to address 

issues arising during the development 

and submittal of exceptional event 

demonstration packages. The EPA is 

deferring a decision on whether to 

revise the Exceptional Events Rule. 

The EPA invites public comment on 

all aspects of this draft guidance during 

the 60-day comment period. The draft 

guidance is not a regulation or any other 

kind of final action and does not 

establish binding requirements on the 

EPA or any state, local, or tribal agency 

or any emissions source. While the EPA 

has established a docket and is 

requesting public comment on the draft 

guidance, this procedure does not alter 

the nature or effect of the draft guidance 

and does not constitute a formal 

rulemaking process or require the EPA 

to respond to public comments in the 

updated guidance before the EPA or 

other agencies may use the guidance in 

reaching decisions making related 

exceptional event demonstration 

submittals. The EPA retains the 

discretion to revise its guidance, issue 

additional guidance, propose 

regulations as appropriate, and to use 

information submitted in public 

comments to inform future decisions. 

Because this draft guidance does not 

constitute a formal rulemaking action, 

the EPA is not required to respond to 

comments, but intends to consider 

significant comments in amending or 

updating the non-binding guidance. 

Following the 60-day comment period 

and review and incorporation of 

comments, the EPA expects to post the 

revised, final guidance documents at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/ 

exevents.htm. 

Please refer to the ADDRESSES section 

above in this document for specific 

instructions on submitting comments. 

III. Internet Web Site for Guidance 

Information 

Interested parties can find the draft 

guidance titled, Draft Guidance 

Documents on the Implementation of 

the Exceptional Events Rule, on the 

Exceptional Events Web site for this 

rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

analysis/exevents.htm. The Web site 

includes examples of reviewed 

exceptional event submissions, best 

practices components, and links to 

publicly available support information 

and tools that the public may find 

useful. 

Dated: June 26, 2012. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16308 Filed 7–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441; FRL–9352–9] 

Difenzoquat; Proposed Data Call-in 

Order for Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed order. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

require the submission of various data 

to support the continuation of the 

tolerances for the pesticide difenzoquat. 

Pesticide tolerances are established 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441; 

FRL–9352–9, 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), Mail Code: 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.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Miederhoff, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 347–8028; email address: 

miederhoff.eric@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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to, those involved with: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS