Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10757 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Would not affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, and 

(3) Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2022–0093; Project Identifier AD–2021– 

00987–T. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by April 11, 

2022. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 737–53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 

2021. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that certain web lap splices in the center 

dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are 

subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue 

cracks in the webs of the aft pressure 

bulkhead, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this 

AD: At the applicable times specified in the 

‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 737–53A1403 RB, 

dated August 26, 2021, do all applicable 

actions identified in, and in accordance with, 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Requirements Bulletin 737–53A1403 

RB, dated August 26, 2021. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for 

accomplishing the actions required by this 

AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1403, dated August 26, 

2021, which is referred to in Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin 737–53A1403 RB, 

dated August 26, 2021. 

(h) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications 

(1) Where the Compliance Time column of 

the table in the ‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of 

Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737– 

53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021, uses the 

phrase ‘‘the original issue date of the 

Requirements Bulletin 737–53A1403 RB,’’ 

this AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of 

this AD.’’ 

(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements 

Bulletin 737–53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 

2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair 

instructions or for alternative inspections: 

This AD requires doing the repair, or doing 

the alternative inspections and applicable oncondition actions, using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or responsible Flight 

Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the manager of the 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of 

this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) that has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make 

those findings. To be approved, the repair 

method, modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Dirk Visser, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 

98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3994; email: 

Dirk.J.Visser@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

Issued on February 3, 2022. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03968 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0345] 

Vessel Traffic Assessment: Near Point 

Mugu, San Francisco Bay, Humboldt 

Bay, and Morro Bay, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of inquiry; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 28, 2021, U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) Pacific Area Command 

issued the Pacific Coast–Port Access 

Route Study (PAC–PARS) in the Federal 

Register directing USCG District Eleven 

and USCG District Thirteen to complete 

a PARS on the Pacific coast. In support 

of the PAC–PARS, USCG District Eleven 

has identified four areas to evaluate 

activities within its area of 

responsibility. USCG District Eleven 

requests public comments regarding 

vessel traffic patterns in the areas near 

Point Mugu and south of the Channel 

Islands in the Pacific Missile Range, San 

Francisco Bay, and the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) Humboldt 

Bay and Morro Bay offshore Wind 

Energy Areas (WEAs). Information 

received will be used to make 

recommendations regarding establishing 

safety routing measures to improve 

waterway operations and vessel 

movement along the California coast. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received on or before May 26, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10758 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2021–0345 using the Federal portal 

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

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this 

notification of study, call or email Mr. 

Tyrone Conner, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone (510) 437–2968, email 

Tyrone.L.Conner@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

U.S.C. United States Code 

PAC Pacific Area Command 

PARS Port Access Route Study 

PAC–PARS Pacific Coast–Port Access Route 

Study 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

RNA Regulated Navigation Areas 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

WEA Wind Energy Area 

NOI Notice of Inquiry 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

DOD Department of Defense 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

II. Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is conducting a Port 

Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate 

safe access routes for the movement of 

vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports 

or places along the western seaboard of 

the United States and to determine 

whether Fairways and Traffic 

Separation Schemes for vessels and/or 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) recommended routes should be 

established, adjusted and/or modified. 

The goal of the Pacific Coast–PARS 

(PAC–PARS) is to enhance maritime 

safety by examining shipping routes and 

waterway uses, and, to the extent 

practicable, reconcile the paramount 

right of navigation within designated 

port access routes with other waterway 

uses such as the development of 

aquaculture farms, offshore renewable 

energy, commercial spaceports/re-entry 

sites, marine sanctuaries, ports 

supporting Panamax vessels, potential 

LNG ports, Pacific Missile Range, and 

additional commercial vessel traffic. 

During the preliminary informationgathering portion, the areas near Point 

Mugu and south of the Channel Islands 

in the Pacific Missile Range, San 

Francisco Bay, and both BOEM WEAs 

were identified as high-interest zones 

for traffic congestion and navigation 

safety. 

A. Requirements for PARS: Chapter 

700, Ports and Waterways Safety, of 

Title 46 of the United States Code, 

specifically 46 U.S.C. 70003 directs the 

Secretary of the department in which 

the Coast Guard resides, in order to 

provide safe access routes for the 

movement of vessel traffic proceeding to 

or from ports or places subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States, to 

designate necessary fairways and traffic 

separation schemes for vessels operating 

in the territorial sea of the United States 

and high seas approaches, outside the 

territorial sea, to such ports or places. 

Such a designation shall recognize, 

within the designated area, the 

paramount right of navigation over all 

other uses. 

46 U.S.C. 70003 requires the Secretary 

to: (1) Undertake a study of the potential 

traffic density and the need for safe 

access routes for vessels in any area for 

which fairways or traffic separation 

schemes are proposed or that may 

otherwise be considered and publish 

notice of such undertaking in the 

Federal Register; (2) in consultation 

with the Secretary of State, the Secretary 

of the Interior, the Secretary of 

Commerce, the Secretary of the Army, 

and the Governors of affected States, as 

their responsibilities may require, take 

into account all other uses of the area 

under consideration, including, as 

appropriate, the exploration for, or 

exploitation of, oil, gas, or other mineral 

resources, the construction or operation 

of deep-water ports or other structures 

on or above the seabed or subsoil of the 

submerged lands or the Outer 

Continental Shelf of the United States, 

the establishment or operation of marine 

or estuarine sanctuaries, and activities 

involving recreational or commercial 

fishing; and (3) to the extent practicable, 

reconcile the need for safe access routes 

with the needs of all other reasonable 

uses of the area involved. 

46 U.S.C. 70003 requires the Secretary 

to proceed expeditiously to complete 

any study undertaken; and after 

completion of such a study, to promptly 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

for the designation contemplated or 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of rulemaking that no designation is 

contemplated as a result of the study 

and the reason for such determination. 

B. Previous Port Access Route Studies: 

The approaches to San Francisco, CA, 

were last studied in 2009, and the final 

results were published in the Federal 

Register on June 20, 2011 (76 FR 35805). 

The study was conducted to evaluate 

the continued applicability and the 

potential need for modifications to the 

vessel routing to help reduce the risk of 

marine casualties and increase the 

efficiency of vessel traffic in the study 

area. All USCG publications regarding 

this study can be found by searching 

docket USCG–2009–0576 on https://

www.regulations.gov. The Port Access 

Route Study for the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca, Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, 

Rosario Strait, the Strait of Georgia, and 

adjacent waters was completed in 

November 2000, published in the 

Federal Register on January 22, 2001 

(66 FR 6514). The study was conducted 

to evaluate the need for modifications to 

current vessel routing and traffic 

management measures due to increased 

maritime activities. However, there has 

never been a PARS conducted for the 

entire Pacific Coast of the United States 

designed to analyze all vessel traffic 

proceeding to and from all the ports and 

transiting through the United States 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

C. Need for a New Port Access Route 

Study: Given the current development 

of aquaculture farms, offshore 

renewable energy, commercial 

spaceports/re-entry sites, expansion of 

marine sanctuaries, development of 

ports supporting Panamax vessels, 

potential LNG ports, National Security 

Measures, DOD testing and training, and 

commercial traffic, the Coast Guard is 

conducting the PAC–PARS 

(Washington, Oregon, and California). 

This PAC–PARS will focus on the 

coastwise shipping routes and near 

coastal users of the Pacific Ocean 

between the coastal ports and the 

approaches to coastal ports within the 

EEZ. This PAC–PARS will help the 

Coast Guard determine what impact, if 

any, the siting, construction, and 

operation of new developments may 

have on existing near coastal users of 

the Pacific Ocean. To ensure the safety 

of navigation, the Coast Guard will 

determine the impacts of rerouting 

traffic, funneling traffic, and placement 

of structures that may obstruct 

navigation. Some of the effects to be 

considered are increased vessel traffic 

density, offshore vessel routing, fixed 

navigation obstructions, underwater 

cable hazards, and economic impacts. 

Analyzing the various results will 

require a thorough understanding of the 

interrelationships of shipping, other 

commercial and recreational uses, Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) development, 

and port operations. 

III. Information Requested 

Timelines, Study Area, Focus, and 

Process: Coast Guard Eleventh District 

will conduct further analysis in the 

following areas, which may take 

approximately three to six months to 

complete. The study will focus on 

vessel traffic and navigation mitigation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10759 

techniques to improve and support safe 

navigation transits within the area. It 

will encompass the areas bound by the 

aforementioned coordinates. 

This is a Notification of Inquiry (NOI) 

to assess the vessel traffic and routing in 

the waters indicated by the 

supplemental PDF, ‘‘Chart of District 

Eleven PAC–PARS Focus Areas’’ 

(available in the docket), and bound by 

the following coordinates: 

Area 1: BOEM HUMBOLDT BAY WEA: 

40–37.06N 124–35.22W; 

40–37.62N 125–15.54W; 

41–14.16N 125–15.54W; 

41–13.61N 124–15.42W. 

Area 2: SAN FRANCISCO BAY: 

36–16.27N 121–54.24W; 

36–10.36N 123–18.54W; 

38–06.78N 124–29.34W; 

38–33.93N 123–30.12W. 

Area 3: BOEM MORRO BAY WEA: 

35–53.90N 122–53.22W; 

35–57.09N 121–45.18W; 

35–20.35N 121–17.04W; 

35–18.54N 122–24.60W. 

Area 4: POINT MUGU: 

33–46.29N 120–07.80W; 

33–53.04N 119–22.80W; 

33–28.62N 118–36.48W; 

33–2.922N 118–35.10W; 

32–50.54N 119–17.58W; 

32–13.79N 121–44.22W; 

34–19.54N 123–07.02W; 

35–14.83N 121–01.86W; 

34–59.52N 120–41.52W; 

33–58.98N 120–39.48W. 

We will analyze current and historical 

vessel traffic, fishing vessel information, 

agency and stakeholder experience in 

vessel traffic management, navigation, 

ship handling, and effects of weather. 

We encourage you to participate by 

submitting comments in response to this 

proposed rule. 

We will publish the results of the 

inquiry in the Federal Register under 

the same docket USCG–2021–0345. It is 

possible that the results may validate 

existing vessel routing measures and 

conclude that no changes are necessary. 

It is also possible that the study may 

recommend one or more changes to 

enhance navigational safety and the 

efficiency of vessel traffic. The 

recommendations may consider the 

development of future rulemakings or 

appropriate international agreements. 

Possible Scope of the 

Recommendations: We are attempting to 

determine the scope of any safety 

concerns associated with vessel transits 

in the focus areas. The information 

gathered during the study should help 

us identify concerns and mitigating 

solutions. Considerations might include: 

(1) Maintain the current vessel routing 

measures; (2) modify the existing traffic 

separation schemes; (3) create one or 

more precautionary areas; (4) create one 

or more inshore traffic zones; (5) 

establish area(s) to be avoided; (6) create 

deep-draft routes; (7) establish 

Regulated Navigation Areas (RNA) with 

specific vessel operating requirements 

to ensure safe navigation near shallow 

water; (8) identify any other appropriate 

ships’ routing measures; (9) use this 

study for future decisions on routing 

measures or other maritime traffic 

considerations and; (10) use this study 

to inform other agencies concerning the 

impacts of their future endeavors. 

Questions: To help us conduct the 

area study, we request information that 

will help answer the following 

questions, although comments on other 

issues addressed in this notice are also 

welcome. In responding to a question, 

please explain your reasons for each 

answer and follow the instructions 

under ‘‘Public Participation and Request 

for Comments’’ below. 

These questions were generated with 

the purpose of eliciting information for 

the four focus areas alone. Any 

information provided should be directly 

related to one or more of the four focus 

areas. 

General Questions (all four areas): 

(1) What are the demographics of the 

vessel your organization represents? 

(Vessel length, vessel draft, vessel type, 

etc.) 

(2) Which of the four areas do you 

transit through? Where are your transit 

routes? 

(3) What criteria are used in 

determining your transit routes? 

(4) How are your vessel routes 

affected by seasonal weather patterns, 

storms, or other adverse environmental 

conditions you have experienced in the 

focus areas? Please explain. 

(5) What navigational hazards do 

vessels operating in the focus areas face? 

Please describe. 

(6) Are there strains on the current 

vessel routing systems? 

(7) Do you perceive increasing traffic 

density to cause increased navigational 

risk? 

(8) What is your prediction of future 

growth with traffic density? Please 

describe. 

(9) What is the minimum safe width 

of coastwise traffic separation schemes 

and lanes considering the traffic density 

and other conditions of the focus areas? 

(10) Are modifications to existing 

vessel routing measures needed to 

address hazards and improve traffic 

efficiency in the study area? If so, please 

describe. 

(11) Is your organization open to 

traffic management strategies (TSS, 

Fairways, IMO recommended routes)? 

Please elaborate. 

(12) What costs and benefits are 

associated with traffic management 

strategies? 

(13) What traffic management 

strategies do you think are most costeffective? 

(14) What traffic management 

strategies do you think are most 

detrimental to cost-effectiveness? 

(15) What impacts, both positive and 

negative, would changes to existing 

routing measures or new routing 

measures have on the study area? 

(16) What improvements to waterway 

management would you like to see? If 

none, why? 

(17) What current waterway 

operations affect navigation? How 

(details please)? 

(18) Do the marine sanctuaries affect 

your navigation routing plans? 

(19) What is a safe and appropriate 

distance between vessel traffic and 

major projects such as aquaculture 

farms and wind farms? 

(20) Are there any results you would 

like to see in the completed PAC–PARS 

study? 

(21) Would you be interested in 

attending virtual presentations of 

findings? 

Pacific Missile Range off Point Mugu 

and Vandenberg Space Force Base: 

(22) Do you typically transit to the 

north or to the south of the Channel 

Islands? 

(23) Do the operations surrounding 

the Pacific Missile Range off 

Vandenberg Space Force Base and the 

Point Mugu zone affect your routing 

plans and vessel movement? How? 

(24) How often are you displaced by 

hazardous operations, testing, and 

military training in the Pacific Missile 

Range? Please describe. 

BOEM Wind Energy Areas (Humboldt 

Bay and Morro Bay) 

(25) What navigational challenges do 

you foresee with the implementation of 

BOEM’s Wind Energy Areas (WEAs)? 

(26) Do you currently transit through 

the proposed BOEM WEAs? Please 

describe. 

(27) Do you think the Coast Guard 

should create designated fairways, 

traffic separation schemes for vessels, or 

exclusion/restricted areas around wind 

farms? 

(28) Would you prefer wind farm 

exclusion/restricted areas where you 

can navigate anywhere outside of the 

wind farm, or would you prefer to 

restrict your navigation inside 

designated coastwise fairways and 

traffic separation schemes through the 

wind farms? Please explain. 

Is there any additional information, 

unrelated to any specific question 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10760 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

above, that you believe the USCG needs 

to consider? 

IV. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments in response to this 

notification of inquiry through the 

Federal Decision Making portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2021–0345 in the search box, 

and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. In your submission, 

please include the docket number for 

this notice of inquiry and provide a 

reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

To view documents mentioned in this 

notice of inquiry as being available in 

the docket, find the docket as described 

in the previous paragraph, and then 

select ‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ 

in the Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we may choose 

not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

Additionally, if you go to the online 

docket and sign up for email alerts, you 

will be notified when comments are 

posted. 

This notice is published under the 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

Dated: February 17, 2022. 

B.K. Penoyer, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eleventh District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03990 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0161; FRL–9410–01– 

OCSPP] 

Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for 

Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or 

on Various Commodities—January 

2022 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notices of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of 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 March 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition (PP) 

of interest as shown in the body of this 

document, through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 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. Additional 

instructions on commenting or visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

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

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

open to visitors by appointment only. 

For the latest status information on 

EPA/DC services and access, visit 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Registration 

Division (7505P), main telephone 

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

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing 

address for each contact person is: 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. As part of the mailing 

address, include the contact person’s 

name, division, and mail code. The 

division to contact is listed at the end 

of each pesticide petition summary. 

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 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1