40040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

under this paragraph (h)(2) will be 

treated as authorizing the Office to 

provide to all foreign intellectual 

property offices indicated in the written 

authority in accordance with their 

respective agreements with the Office: 

(i) Bibliographic data regarding the 

application; and 

(ii) Any content of the application file 

necessary to satisfy the foreign 

intellectual property office requirement 

for information indicated in the 

respective agreement. 

(3) Written authority provided under 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this 

section must include the title of the 

invention (§ 1.72(a)), comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section, and be submitted on an 

application data sheet (§ 1.76) or on a 

separate document (§ 1.4(c)). The 

written authority provided under these 

paragraphs should be submitted before 

filing any subsequent foreign 

application in which priority is claimed 

to the application. 

■ 3. Section 1.19 is amended by revising 

paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 1.19 Document supply fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) If provided to a foreign 

intellectual property office pursuant to 

a bilateral or multilateral agreement (see 

§ 1.14(h)): $0.00. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 2, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16062 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 168 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607; FRL–9913–19] 

RIN 2070–AJ53 

Labeling of Pesticide Products and 

Devices for Export; Clarification of 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the regulations that pertain to the 

labeling of pesticide products and 

devices that are intended solely for 

export. These amendments clarify that 

pesticide products and devices that are 

intended solely for export must meet the 

Agency’s labeling requirements by 

attaching a label to the immediate 

product container or by providing 

collateral labeling that is either attached 

to the immediate product being 

exported or that accompanies the 

shipping container of the product being 

exported at all times when it is shipped 

or held for shipment in the United 

States. Collateral labeling will ensure 

the availability of the required labeling 

information, while allowing pesticide 

products and devices that are intended 

solely for export to be labeled for use in 

and consistent with the applicable 

requirements of the importing country. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607, 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. 

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: 

Kathryn Boyle, Field and External 

Affairs Division (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 305–6304; 

email address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action affect me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you export a pesticide 

product, a pesticide device, or an active 

ingredient used in producing a 

pesticide. 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, but are not limited to: Pesticide 

and other agricultural chemical 

manufacturing (NAICS code 325320), 

e.g., Pesticides manufacturing, 

Insecticides manufacturing, Herbicides 

manufacturing, Fungicides 

manufacturing, etc. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of section 25(a) of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), to carry 

out the provisions of FIFRA section 

17(a), 7 U.S.C. 136o(a). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

regulations that pertain to the labeling 

of pesticide products and devices that 

are intended solely for export. These 

amendments clarify that pesticide 

products and devices that are intended 

solely for export must meet the 

Agency’s labeling requirements by 

attaching a label to the immediate 

product container or by providing 

collateral labeling that is either attached 

to the immediate product being 

exported or that accompanies the 

shipping container of the product being 

exported at all times when it is shipped 

or held for shipment in the United 

States. Collateral labeling will ensure 

the availability of the required labeling 

information, while allowing pesticide 

products and devices that are intended 

solely for export to be labeled for use in 

and consistent with the applicable 

requirements of the importing country. 

D. What are the impacts of this action? 

There are no costs associated with 

this action, and the benefits provided 

are related to avoiding potential costs. 

Without these labeling provisions, 

registrants would be required to place 

export-related labeling on the 

immediate package of each individual 

pesticide product in a shipping 

container that is intended solely for 

export. According to stakeholders, the 

inability to use the labeling method 

allowed under the previous regulations 

could significantly increase their costs 

and create trade barriers. 

II. Background 

A. The April 30, 2014 Direct Final Rule 

Industry stakeholders subsequently 

brought to the Agency’s attention their 

concern that removing the term 

‘‘supplemental labeling’’ resulted in the 

removal of a provision stating that such 

supplemental labeling can be attached 

to a shipping container holding export 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40041 

pesticides or devices rather than to each 

individual product container in a 

shipment. They stated that the inability 

of registrants to use ‘‘supplemental 

labeling’’ in that manner could create 

trade barriers and increase costs. The 

purpose of the direct final rule EPA 

published in the Federal Register of 

April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24347) (FRL– 

9909–82) was to address those concerns 

as expeditiously as possible. 

As indicated in the direct final rule, 

EPA now believes that the term 

‘‘supplemental labeling’’ is not the 

appropriate term to describe the 

material or documentation used to meet 

the requirements of the export labeling 

rules. To more accurately describe the 

materials other than ‘‘labels’’ that are 

acceptable for meeting these 

requirements, EPA believes that a better 

term is ‘‘collateral labeling.’’ EPA has 

already described collateral labeling in 

the Label Review Manual (LRM), p. 3– 

2 (see http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/

labeling/lrm/chap-03.pdf), as follows: 

Bulletins, leaflets, circulars, brochures, 

data sheets, flyers or other written, printed or 

graphic matter which are referred to on the 

label or which are to accompany the product 

are known in Agency practice as ‘‘collateral 

labeling.’’ Such labeling is subject to 

applicable requirements of FIFRA and the 

Agency’s regulations. 

Accordingly, the direct final rule used 

the term ‘‘collateral labeling’’ in 

restoring the ability of exporters to 

comply with export labeling 

requirements through materials that are 

not attached to each individual export 

product’s immediate container. The 

direct final rule provided amendments 

for revising existing 40 CFR 168.66 to 

remove the reference to 40 CFR 

156.10(a)(4), and to restore the 

inadvertently eliminated provisions that 

allowed exporters to use such collateral 

labeling attached to, or accompanying, 

the product shipping container of the 

export pesticide at all times when 

shipped or held for shipment in the 

United States. The direct final rule also 

restructures 40 CFR part 168, subpart D, 

by moving the text in § 168.68 and some 

of the text in § 168.66 to new § 168.65. 

B. Summary of the April 6, 2011 

Proposed Rule 

In the Federal Register of April 6, 

2011 (76 FR 18995) (FRL–8862–2), EPA 

issued a proposed rule to clarify, 

restructure, and add specificity to 

labeling regulations for the export of 

unregistered pesticide products and 

devices. Additionally, that proposed 

rule explicitly requires labeling to 

accompany the unregistered export 

pesticide product or device at all times, 

even when such products are being 

shipped between registered 

establishments operated by the same 

producer. 

C. Public Comments on the April 6, 

2011 Proposed Rule 

Six sets of comments were submitted. 

Two of the commenters pointed out 

several inconsistencies in the use of the 

terms ‘‘label,’’ ‘‘labeling,’’ and 

‘‘supplemental labeling’’ in the 

proposed rule. One of those commenters 

also urged ‘‘that all labeling 

requirements should be in compliance 

with existing regulations under 40 CFR 

156.’’ The comments are available in the 

docket under docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2009–0607. 

EPA analyzed the comments and 

prepared a response to comments 

document, which is available in the 

docket under document ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607–0016. As 

part of analyzing the comment on 

inconsistencies in the use of the terms 

‘‘label,’’ ‘‘labeling,’’ and ‘‘supplemental 

labeling,’’ EPA referred to FIFRA’s 

definitions of ‘‘label’’ and ‘‘labeling.’’ 

Section 2(p)(1) of FIFRA defines label as 

‘‘the written, printed, or graphic matter 

on, or attached to, the pesticide or 

device or any of its containers or 

wrappers.’’ Under FIFRA section 

2(p)(2), labeling is a more inclusive term 

which includes labels as well as ‘‘all 

other written, printed, or graphic 

matter’’ that accompanies the product at 

any time, or to which reference is made 

on a label or in literature accompanying 

the pesticide or device. Because the two 

terms are not interchangeable, EPA 

agreed that inconsistent use could create 

confusion. Thus, as EPA began to write 

the regulatory text for the final rule, the 

Agency carefully evaluated the 

regulatory text for possibly confusing 

uses of the terms ‘‘label’’ and ‘‘labeling.’’ 

During that evaluation, and bearing in 

mind the comment that ‘‘all labeling 

requirements should be in compliance 

with existing regulations under 40 CFR 

156,’’ EPA analyzed proposed 

§ 168.66(b). Proposed § 168.66(b) 

specified that ‘‘the required label 

information may be fully met by’’ and 

then provided several examples of ways 

to provide the required label 

information. One of the examples 

referred to ‘‘supplemental labeling.’’ At 

that time, EPA determined to provide a 

reference to the existing label 

regulations in 40 CFR part 156, instead 

of providing examples of ways to meet 

the required label information. 

Specifically, EPA referred to 40 CFR 

156.10(a)(4), believing that provision 

would provide appropriate and accurate 

information. 

D. The January 18, 2013 Final Rule 

The final rule entitled ‘‘Labeling of 

Pesticide Products and Devices for 

Export; Clarification of Requirements’’ 

published in the Federal Register of 

January 18, 2013 (78 FR 4073) (FRL– 

9360–8). This final rule was effective on 

March 19, 2013, with a compliance date 

of January 21, 2014. 

III. Withdrawal of the April 30, 2014 

Direct Final Rule 

In the preamble to the direct final 

rule, EPA explained the Agency’s 

reasons for these amendments, and that 

we would withdraw that direct final 

rule if written adverse comment were 

received within 30 days of the 

publication of that direct final rule. 

Since EPA received written adverse 

comments, elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, EPA has withdrawn 

the direct final rule, and the direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

In accordance with the procedures 

described in the April 30, 2014 direct 

final rule, EPA is publishing this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Issues Raised by the Adverse 

Comments 

EPA received two written adverse 

comments in response to the direct final 

rule. Both commenters indicated their 

disagreement with EPA’s approach on 

the use of collateral labeling. Their 

comments indicated their belief that 

individual pesticide products should be 

properly labeled, even if intended solely 

for export. One commenter indicated 

that this would only ‘‘benefit the large 

pesticide producers, allowing them to 

cut the cost of production by not 

properly labeling everything.’’ The other 

commenter indicated that labeling ‘‘is 

critical to safe and rational use of 

pesticides.’’ 

EPA believes that both commenters 

misinterpreted the intent of the direct 

final rule and interpreted the direct final 

rule as removing or eliminating 

requirements. The amendments 

specified in the direct final rule do not 

remove or eliminate label requirements 

for individual pesticide products or 

devices that are intended solely for 

export. The amendments would have 

simply clarified that the label 

requirements for products intended for 

export can be met with labeling on the 

individual products with the addition of 

collateral labeling attached to either the 

product or the product shipment 

container. 

Typically, products that are 

manufactured in the United States for 

export bear a label which meets the 

requirements of the importing country. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Since that label may not meet all the 

FIFRA labeling requirements contained 

in 40 CFR part 168, the regulations 

previously allowed for these products to 

meet those requirements by labeling 

attached to the shipping container. As 

an example, a shrink-wrapped pallet of 

cartons would have only one FIFRA 

export label attached to the shrink-wrap. 

A pallet of unwrapped cartons, on the 

other hand, would have FIFRA export 

labels attached to each carton. In both 

cases, the individual products in those 

cartons are individually labeled for use 

in the importing country and in 

compliance with the applicable labeling 

requirements of that importing country. 

EPA believes that collateral labeling is 

appropriate for shipping containers 

holding pesticide products and devices 

that are intended solely for export 

because it ensures the availability of the 

information provided by the FIFRA 

export label requirements while those 

products are in transit in the United 

States. 

The amendments specified in the 

direct final rule were not to establish a 

new or substantively different 

requirement from that which existed 

until 2013, when a final rule 

inadvertently deleted the applicable 

provisions. After considering these 

adverse comments, EPA has determined 

no changes are needed, and is proposing 

the same regulatory text as that in the 

April 30, 2014 direct final rule. 

V. FIFRA Review Requirements 

In accordance with FIFRA section 

25(a), EPA previously submitted the 

draft proposed rule to the Secretary of 

Agriculture (USDA), the FIFRA 

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), and the 

appropriate Congressional Committees. 

On February 10, 2014, the FIFRA SAP 

waived its review of this proposed rule 

because the changes ‘‘are administrative 

in nature and do not contain scientific 

issues that require the SAP’s 

consideration.’’ On March 12, 2014, 

USDA waived review of this proposed 

rule, because this action merely 

‘‘corrects the regulatory text.’’ 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was not, 

therefore, submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

According to PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under PRA, 

unless it has been approved by OMB 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA regulations in title 40 

of the CFR, after appearing in the 

Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, and included on the related 

collection instrument or form, as 

applicable. 

The information collection 

requirements associated with reporting 

under 40 CFR part 168 have already 

been approved by OMB pursuant to 

PRA under OMB control number 2070– 

0027 (EPA ICR No. 0161). This proposed 

rule is not expected to involve an 

increase in information collection 

activities. There are no additional 

burdens imposed by this proposed rule 

that requires additional review or 

approval by OMB. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action, if finalized as 

proposed, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under RFA, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities, because the 

primary purpose of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is to identify and 

address regulatory alternatives ‘‘which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the rule on small entities’’ 5 

U.S.C. 603. Thus, an agency may certify 

that a rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities if the rule has 

no net burden effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. As indicated 

previously, EPA is restoring a provision 

that was inadvertently removed from 

the regulation. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will have no 

net regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

Tribal governments, because no State, 

local, or Tribal government is known to 

produce, transport, formulate, package, 

or export unregistered pesticide 

products or devices. As indicated 

previously, EPA is restoring a provision 

that was inadvertently removed from 

the regulation. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action will not have substantial 

direct effect on 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). 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications because it is 

expected to only affect producers, 

transporters, formulators, packagers, 

and exporters of unregistered pesticide 

products and devices. Since no Indian 

Tribal government is known to produce, 

transport, formulate, package, or export 

unregistered pesticide products or 

devices, this action has no tribal 

implications. Accordingly, the 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does 

not apply to this proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because this action does not 

address environmental health or safety 

risks disproportionately affecting 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because this action is not 

expected to affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Since this action does not involve any 

technical standards, NTTAA section 

12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not 

apply to this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40043 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. As such, this 

action does not entail special 

considerations of environmental justice 

related issues as delineated by 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 168 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Advertising, Exports, Labeling, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 3, 2014. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 168—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 168 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. 

■ 2. Revise the heading for subpart D to 

part 168 to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Procedures for Exporting 

Pesticides 

■ 3. Add § 168.65 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 168.65 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart describes the labeling 

requirements applicable to pesticide 

products and devices that are intended 

solely for export from the United States 

under the provisions of FIFRA section 

17(a). 

(b) This subpart applies to all export 

pesticide products and export pesticide 

devices that are exported for any 

purpose, including research. 

(c) Export pesticide products and 

export pesticide devices are also subject 

to requirements for pesticide production 

reporting, recordkeeping and 

inspection, and purchaser 

acknowledgement provisions that can 

be found in the following parts: 

(1) Pesticide production reporting 

requirements under FIFRA section 7 are 

located in part 167 of this chapter (as 

referenced in § 168.85(b)). 

(2) Recordkeeping and inspection 

requirements under FIFRA section 8 are 

located in part 169 of this chapter (as 

referenced in § 168.85(a)). 

(3) Purchaser acknowledgement 

statement provisions under FIFRA 

section 17(a) are located in § 168.75. 

■ 4. Revise § 168.66 to read as follows: 

§ 168.66 Labeling of pesticide products 

and devices for export. 

Any label and labeling information 

requirements in §§ 168.69, 168.70, and 

168.71 that are not met fully on the 

product label attached to the immediate 

product container may be met by 

collateral labeling that is either: 

(a) Attached to the immediate product 

(container label); or 

(b) Attached to or accompanies the 

shipping container of the export 

pesticide or export device at all times 

when it is shipped or held for shipment 

in the United States. 

§ 168.68 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 168.68. 

■ 6. In § 168.69, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 168.69 Registered export pesticide 

products. 

(a) Each export pesticide product that 

is registered under FIFRA section 3 or 

FIFRA section 24(c) must bear labeling 

approved by EPA for its registration or 

collateral labeling in compliance with 

§ 168.66. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 168.70, revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 168.70 Unregistered export pesticide 

products. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each unregistered export pesticide 

product must bear labeling that 

complies with all requirements of this 

section or collateral labeling in 

compliance with § 168.66: 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 168.71, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 168.71 Export pesticide devices. 

(a) Each export pesticide device sold 

or distributed anywhere in the United 

States must bear labeling that complies 

with all requirements of this section or 

collateral labeling in compliance with 

§ 168.66. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–16274 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0194; FRL–9910–45] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Amitraz, Carfentrazone-ethyl, 

Ethephon, Malathion, Mancozeb, et al.; 

Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the fungicides 

spiroxamine and triflumizole, the 

herbicides carfentrazone-ethyl and 

quizalofop ethyl; the insecticides 

amitraz, oxamyl, propetamphos, and 

spinosad; and the plant growth 

regulators ethephon and mepiquat. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to revoke the 

tolerance on rice straw for multiple 

active ingredients. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the fungicides mancozeb, thiram, 

and triflumizole; and the insecticide 

malathion. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to establish new tolerances 

for the fungicide mancozeb. Also, in 

accordance with current Agency 

practice, EPA is proposing to make 

minor revisions to the tolerance 

expression for malathion, mepiquat, and 

thiram. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0194, 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. 

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: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS