Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 36339 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS1—Continued 

Name of source Permit No. 

State effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

P4 Production, L.L.C. , Soda Springs, Idaho T2–2009.0109 11/17/ 

2009 

(date 

issued).

06/22/11 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following conditions: 1.2 (including 

Table 1.1), 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 

2.8. (Regional Haze SIP Revision). 

1EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a demonstration that their removal would 

not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision. 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze SIP Revision.State-wide ........ 10/25/10 06/22/11 [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

The portion of the Regional Haze SIP revision relating to BART, the calculation of baseline and natural conditions, and the statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal Area. 

■ 3. Section 52.672 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.672 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(g) Visibility protection. (1) EPA 

approves portions of a Regional Haze 

SIP revision submitted by the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

on October 25, 2010, as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. The 

SIP revision also meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) 

regarding the calculation of baseline and 

natural conditions for Craters of the 

Moon National Monument, Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot 

Wilderness Area and the statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal Area. The 

SIP revision also meets the requirements 

of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2011–15452 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9322–1] 

RIN A2060 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best 

Available Monitoring Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; Grant of 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This action gives notice that 

EPA has initiated the reconsideration 

process in response to a request for 

reconsideration of provisions for the use 

of best available monitoring methods in 

Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing of 

the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule. Consequently, this 

action extends three of the deadlines in 

Subpart I related to using the best 

available monitoring methods 

provisions from June 30, 2011 to 

September 30, 2011. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 30, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9263; fax (202) 343– 

2342; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information and 

implementation materials, please go to 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a 

question, select Rule Help Center, then 

select Contact Us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

GHG greenhouse gas 

mm millimeters 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SIA Semiconductor Industry Association 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

U.S. United States 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The ‘‘largest’’ semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities are defined as those facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in 

diameter and that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity of greater than 10,500 square meters (m2) 

of substrate. EPA estimates that the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities comprise 29 

facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities. 

See the Electronics Manufacturing Technical 

Support Document available in the docket (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0927) for EPA’s analysis. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

III. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

I. Background Information 

EPA published Subpart I: Electronics 

Manufacturing of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule on December 1, 2010 (75 

FR 74774). This subpart requires 

monitoring and reporting of greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions from electronics 

manufacturing. Included in the 

December 1, 2010 final rule are 

provisions allowing owners or operators 

of semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities the option of using and/or 

requesting the use of best available 

monitoring methods (BAMM) for 

specified parameters. Specifically, from 

January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011, owners 

or operators may use BAMM for any 

parameter that cannot reasonably be 

measured according to the monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements of Subpart I 

without submitting a request to and 

receiving approval from the 

Administrator (40 CFR 98.94(a)(1)). To 

extend the use of BAMM to estimate 

emissions that occur beyond June 30, 

2011, the December 1, 2010 final rule 

provides that owners and operators 

must submit a request to and receive 

approval from the Administrator 

consistent with the following: 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions that occur 

from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 

2011 for parameters other than recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the plasma etching 

process type must have been submitted 

to EPA no later than February 28, 2011 

(40 CFR 98.94(a)(2)). 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions that occur 

from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 

2011 for recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates for the 

plasma etching process type must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 

2011 (40 CFR 98.94(a)(3)). 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions beyond 

December 31, 2011 for unique and 

extreme circumstances must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 

2011 (40 CFR 98.94(a)(4)). 

Following the publication of subpart 

I in the Federal Register, the 

Semiconductor Industry Association 

(SIA) sought reconsideration of several 

provisions in the final rule, including 

the provisions relating to BAMM. In its 

Petition for Reconsideration dated 

January 31, 2011 (available in docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927), SIA stated 

that the BAMM provisions raise 

‘‘substantive compliance issues.’’ In 

particular, SIA stated that the 

substantive compliance issues relate to 

the following aspects of the BAMM 

provisions: The requirement to 

recalculate and resubmit estimated 

emissions, the individual requirementby-requirement BAMM request process, 

the documentation requirement, the 

timeframe for assembling the 

documentation, and the unique and 

extreme circumstances provision. More 

specifically, SIA stated that the 

individual requirement-by-requirement 

BAMM request process is cumbersome 

and unreasonably burdensome, and that 

the required documentation to support 

the request is excessive. Further, SIA 

stated that the deadlines for submitting 

the request to use BAMM were 

‘‘unreasonable.’’ In particular, SIA 

stated that the June 30, 2011 deadline 

for the recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates was ‘‘not 

realistic’’ due to ‘‘serious technical 

infeasibility issues.’’ SIA also noted that 

the individuals who would be 

responsible for analyzing Subpart I, 

gathering information, and preparing 

the BAMM requests were the same 

individuals who would be working with 

EPA ‘‘towards mutually acceptable 

solutions and alternatives.’’ 

EPA has concluded that pursuant to 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) it is 

appropriate to extend by three months 

the period in 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1), during 

which owners and operators have the 

option to use BAMM in 2011 without 

submitting a request for approval from 

the Administrator. EPA has also 

concluded that pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) it is appropriate to extend 

by three months the deadlines in 40 

CFR 98.94(a)(3)(i) and 98.94(a)(4)(i), by 

which owners and operators may 

submit a request for approval by the 

Administrator to use BAMM in 2011 for 

recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates (recipe-specific 

emission factors) for the plasma etching 

process type, and to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions that occur beyond 

December 31, 2011 for unique and 

extreme circumstances, respectively. 

Extending the deadlines will allow EPA 

additional time to consider comments 

and take final action on a proposal that 

EPA is also publishing today, as 

discussed in more detail in the 

following paragraphs. 

In a separate action also published in 

today’s Federal Register (please refer to 

the proposed rule Mandatory Reporting 

of Greenhouse Gases: Changes to 

Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing (Subpart I) to Provide 

Flexibility in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927), EPA is proposing to allow 

the largest semiconductor facilities the 

option of calculating emissions using 

default utilization and by-production 

formation rates (default emission 

factors) already contained in Subpart I 

for the plasma etching process type for 

a limited time period instead of 

calculating emissions using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission 

factors during that time period.1 The 

December 1, 2010 final rule provides 

that the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities are required to 

calculate emissions for the plasma 

etching process type using only directly 

measured recipe-specific emission 

factors. Other semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that 

manufacture wafers on 300 millimeters 

(mm) or less in diameter are required to 

calculate emissions for the plasma 

etching process type using default 

emission factors provided in Tables I–3 

and I–4 of Subpart I. 

In the separate action also published 

in today’s Federal Register, EPA is 

proposing to allow the largest 

semiconductor facilities to use the same 

default emission factors already used by 

the other semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities that manufacture wafers on 

300 mm or less in diameter during the 

initial years of implementation of 

Subpart I in response to concerns raised 

by SIA in their Petition for 

Reconsideration regarding the 

individual recipe measurement 

approach, that is, the requirement that 

the largest facilities develop and use 

recipe-specific emission factors for etch 

processes. More specifically, in their 

Petition, SIA stated that the individual 

recipe measurement approach is 

technically impractical, burdensome, 

threatens intellectual property, and 

would hamper innovation. SIA also 

stated its member companies’ ‘‘strong 

desire to reach agreement with EPA on 

an alternative’’ to that measurement 

approach. By extending the dates by 

which a facility may use and/or request 

the use of BAMM in today’s final action, 

EPA will have additional time to 

consider comments and take final action 

on provisions in the separate action to 

allow the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to use the 

default emission factors already 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 36341 

contained in Subpart I in the initial 

years of implementation. In turn, this 

will provide a clear, consistent 

approach to compliance with Subpart I 

while EPA considers longer-term 

alternatives. 

In today’s final rule, EPA is taking no 

action on other issues raised by SIA in 

their Petition for Reconsideration. EPA 

is also taking no action at this time on 

issues raised by 3M Company in their 

January 28, 2011 Petition for 

Reconsideration of Subpart I. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA is extending 

the deadlines in 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1), 40 

CFR 98.94(a)(3)(i), and 40 CFR 

98.94(a)(4)(i) for three months; i.e., until 

September 30, 2011. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making today’s rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment. We are acting pursuant to 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) to extend 

these deadlines in part because we are 

considering a change to Subpart I, 

which would obviate the need to 

conduct a BAMM process for this aspect 

of the rule. In addition, we are 

extending these provisions to allow 

owners and operators of affected 

facilities additional time to assess their 

facilities to determine if it will be 

necessary for them to apply for BAMM 

for any other aspect of Subpart I beyond 

2011 for unique and extreme 

circumstances. Because we cannot 

predict the outcome of today’s proposed 

rule, we have concluded that a limited 

extension pending final action on that 

proposal is appropriate so that owners 

and operators of affected facilities 

would not incur additional costs 

associated with applying for BAMM in 

advance of our final decision on this 

issue. It would be impracticable to go 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking to extend an imminent 

deadline, and it is also unnecessary 

because section 307(d)(7)(B) does not 

require notice and comment for a threemonth extension pending 

reconsideration. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are impracticable and 

unnecessary. EPA finds that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) in this instance. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). For this reason, this 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, 

because the agency has made a ‘‘good 

cause’’ finding that this action is not 

subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute (see 

Section I of this preamble) it is not 

subject to sections 202 and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, 

this action does not impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandates as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior 

consultation with State officials, as 

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve 

special consideration of environmental 

justice related issues, as required by 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). Further, because the 

agency has made a ‘‘good cause’’ finding 

that this action is not subject to noticeand-comment requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute, it is not subject to the 

regulatory flexibility provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq.). This action also does not have 

Tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

The requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This action does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). EPA’s compliance 

with these statutes and Executive 

Orders for the underlying rule is 

discussed in the December 1, 2010 

Federal Register document. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This action is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective June 

30, 2011. 

III. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

This Federal Register notice is 

available in the docket for the final rule 

titled ‘‘Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs,’’ published on 

December 1, 2010 at 98 FR 74774, under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA’s Docket Center, Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC 

20460. This Docket Facility 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

Center is (202) 566–1741. 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

Federal Register notice is also available 

on the World Wide Web at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental Protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Monitoring, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Dated: June 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 98.94 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(3) 

introductory text. 

■ c. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(i). 

■ d. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i). 

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Best available monitoring 

methods. From January 1, 2011 through 

September 30, 2011, owners or 

operators may use best available 

monitoring methods for any parameter 

that cannot reasonably be measured 

according to the monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements of this subpart. The owner 

or operator must use the calculation 

methodologies and equations in § 98.93, 

but may use the best available 

monitoring method for any parameter 

for which it is not reasonably feasible to 

acquire, install, or operate a required 

piece of monitoring equipment in a 

facility, or to procure necessary 

measurement services by January 1, 

2011. Starting no later than October 1, 

2011, the owner or operator must 

discontinue using best available 

monitoring methods and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements of this part, except 

as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), 

or (a)(4) of this section. Best available 

monitoring methods means any of the 

following methods specified in this 

paragraph: 

* * * * * 

(3) Requests for extension of the use 

of best available monitoring methods in 

2011 for recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates for the 

plasma etching process type under 

§ 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). The owner or 

operator may submit a request to the 

Administrator under this paragraph 

(a)(3) to use one or more best available 

monitoring methods to estimate 

emissions that occur between October 1, 

2011 and December 31, 2011 for recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the etching process 

type under § 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). 

(i) Timing of request. The extension 

request must be submitted to EPA no 

later than September 30, 2011. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Timing of request. The extension 

request must be submitted to EPA no 

later than September 30, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–15650 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0330; FRL–8875–9] 

2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol; Exemption 

from the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of 2-methyl-2,4- 

pentanediol (CAS Reg. No. 107–41–5) 

when used as an inert ingredient as a 

solvent in pesticide formulations 40 

CFR 180.910 and 180.930 for use on 

crops (pre-harvest and post-harvest) and 

for direct application on animals 

without limitations. 2-methyl-2,4- 

pentanediol is commonly referred to as 

‘‘hexylene glycol’’. The FB Sciences, 

Inc., 153 N. Main Street, Suite 100, 

Collierville, TN 38017 submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting establishment of an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 2- 

methyl-2,4-pentanediol. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

22, 2011. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 22, 2011, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2010–0330. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Dow, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305– 5533; e-mail address: 

dow.mark@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: 

• 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES