34142 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Cf. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Thomas, 

838 F.2d 1224, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (the clause in 

CAA section 307(b) governing ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations’’ provides jurisdiction over 

both the direct challenge to the regulations and the 

petition for reconsideration). 

2The EPA intends to maintain this position in 

merits briefing in the 5th Circuit, as the 5th 

Circuit’s venue decision denied the EPA’s motion 

to dismiss or transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit 

without prejudice to reconsideration of the issue by 

the merits panel. Texas v. EPA, 706 Fed. Appx. 159, 

161, 165 (5th Cir. 2017) (‘‘EPA’s motion therefore 

is denied without prejudice to reconsideration by 

the merits panel . . . merits briefing will provide 

greater clarity on what determinations lie at the 

[Round 2] Supplement’s core, by, for example, 

illuminating that the key determinations in the rule 

are determinations that specific methodologies are 

appropriate or preferable for assessing sulfur 

dioxide levels nationwide, as opposed to factspecific assessments of sulfur dioxide levels in the 

four Texas regions. In that case, the merits panel 

should not be constrained from revisiting the 

issue.’’). 

3 In deciding whether to invoke the exception by 

making and publishing a finding that this final 

action is based on a determination of nationwide 

scope or effect, the Administrator has also taken 

into account a number of policy considerations, 

including his judgment balancing the benefit of 

obtaining the D.C. Circuit’s authoritative centralized 

review versus allowing development of the issue in 

other contexts and the best use of agency resources. 

4 In the report on the 1977 Amendments that 

revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress 

noted that the Administrator’s determination that 

the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ exception applies 

would be appropriate for any action that has a 

scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See 

H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

5See, supra, n.2. 

Judicial challenges to the EPA’s denials 

of petitions for reconsideration of CAA 

actions belong in the same venue as any 

challenge to the action that such 

petitions request the agency to 

reconsider.1

The D.C. Circuit is the only 

appropriate venue for both challenges to 

the final action titled, ‘‘Air Quality 

Designations for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard— 

Supplement to Round 2 for Four Areas 

in Texas: Freestone and Anderson 

Counties, Milam County, Rusk and 

Panola Counties, and Titus County,’’ 81 

FR 89870 (December 13, 2016) (‘‘Round 

2 Supplement’’) and challenges to these 

actions denying administrative petitions 

on the Round 2 Supplement. The EPA 

made a finding in the Round 2 

Supplement, that the Round 2 

Supplement is based on a determination 

of ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ within 

the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). 

See 81 FR at 89874–75. That action is 

currently being challenged in the Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; 

however, the EPA maintains that the 

proper venue for that action is the D.C. 

Circuit.2 Thus, judicial challenges to the 

actions noticed here, denying 

administrative petitions for 

reconsideration and/or stay of the 

Round 2 Supplement, also belong in the 

D.C. Circuit. 

To the extent a court finds these 

actions denying the administrative 

petitions on the Round 2 Supplement to 

be locally or regionally applicable, the 

Administrator is exercising the 

complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that each of these actions are 

based on a determination of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).3

Both the Round 2 Supplement and these 

final actions noticed here are finalized 

pursuant to a common, uniform 

nationwide analytical method and 

interpretation of CAA section 107(d). In 

denying the petitions for 

reconsideration and administrative stay 

of the Round 2 Supplement, these final 

actions apply the same common, 

uniform nationwide analytical method 

and interpretation of CAA section 

107(d) that the EPA applied across the 

country in designations for the SO2

Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), including the EPA’s 

nationwide approach to and technical 

evaluation of air quality modeling and 

monitoring data within the EPA’s 

interpretation of statutory terms under 

section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.4 These 

final actions are based on this same 

common core of determinations 

regarding the nationwide analytical 

method and interpretation of CAA 

section 107(d), determinations that 

specific methodologies are appropriate 

or preferable for assessing sulfur dioxide 

levels nationwide.5 More specifically, 

these final actions are based on a 

determination by the EPA to evaluate 

areas nationwide using a common fivefactor analysis in determining whether 

areas are in violation of or contributing 

to an area in violation of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS at the time of the designations 

final action. The actions denying the 

petitions for reconsideration explained, 

for example, that the EPA’s designations 

and the denials for reconsideration are 

based on the EPA’s determination to 

consider and assess the technical 

representativeness of all available 

information regarding then-current air 

quality at the time of designations (e.g., 

to consider third party modeling 

submitted to the EPA of the then-most 

recent years of air quality and thencurrently available monitoring 

information, and not to consider 

projections or intended monitoring of 

future years’ emissions, for SO2

designations under the CAA). For these 

reasons, the Administrator is exercising 

the complete discretion afforded to him 

by the CAA and hereby finds that each 

of these final actions is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect for purposes of CAA section 

307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing those 

findings in the Federal Register. 

Under CAA section 307(b), any 

petition for review of these actions 

denying the petitions for 

reconsideration and/or stay must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit within 60 

days from the date this notice is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of these final actions 

does not affect the finality of the actions 

for the purposes of judicial review, nor 

does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such actions. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13938 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0474; FRL–10025–18] 

Bacillus subtilis Strain RTI477; 

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 Bacillus subtilis 

strain RTI477 in or on all food 

commodities when used in accordance 

with label directions and good 

agricultural practices. FMC Corporation 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477 under FFDCA when used in 

accordance with this exemption. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

29, 2021. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 30, 2021 and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34143 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0474, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. 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 OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Smith, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; main telephone number: 

(703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@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. 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. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Publishing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=

ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_

02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2019–0474 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing and must be received 

by the Hearing Clerk on or before 

August 30, 2021. Addresses for mail and 

hand delivery of objections and hearing 

requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b), although EPA strongly 

encourages those interested in 

submitting objections or a hearing 

request, to submit objections and 

hearing requests electronically. See 

Order Urging Electronic Service and 

Filing (April 10, 2020), https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_

order_urging_electronic_service_and_

filing.pdf. At this time, because of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the judges and 

staff of the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges are working remotely and not 

able to accept filings or correspondence 

by courier, personal delivery, or 

commercial delivery, and the ability to 

receive filings or correspondence by 

U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When 

submitting documents to the U.S. EPA 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ), a person should utilize the 

OALJ e-filing system, at https://

yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_

upload.nsf. 

Although EPA’s regulations require 

submission via U.S. Mail or hand 

delivery, EPA intends to treat 

submissions filed via electronic means 

as properly filed submissions during 

this time that the Agency continues to 

maximize telework due to the 

pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the 

preference for submission via electronic 

means will not be prejudicial. If it is 

impossible for a person to submit 

documents electronically or receive 

service electronically, e.g., the person 

does not have any access to a computer, 

the person shall so advise OALJ by 

contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 

564–6281. If a person is without access 

to a computer and must file documents 

by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the 

Hearing Clerk every time it files a 

document in such a manner. The 

address for mailing documents is U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Administrative Law Judges, 

Mail Code 1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2019–0474, 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 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. 

II. Background 

In the Federal Register of February 4, 

2020 (85 FR 6129) (FRL–10003–17), 

EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

tolerance exemption petition (PP 

9F8749) by FMC Corporation, 2929 

Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 

be amended by establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of the fungicide 

Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 in or on 

all food commodities. That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by the petitioner FMC 

Corporation and available in the docket 

via http://www.regulations.gov. No 

comments were received on the notice 

of filing. 

III. Final Rule 

A. EPA’s Safety Determination 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
34144 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings but does not include 

occupational exposure. Pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in 

establishing or maintaining in effect an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance, EPA must take into account 

the factors set forth in FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give 

special consideration to exposure of 

infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance or tolerance exemption and to 

‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to 

infants and children from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue. . . .’’ Additionally, FFDCA 

section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA 

consider ‘‘available information 

concerning the cumulative effects of [a 

particular pesticide’s] . . . residues and 

other substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA evaluated the available 

toxicological and exposure data on 

Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 and 

considered their validity, completeness, 

and reliability, as well as the 

relationship of this information to 

human risk. A full explanation of the 

data upon which EPA relied and its risk 

assessment based on those data can be 

found within the document entitled 

‘‘Human Health Risk Assessment for the 

New Active Ingredients Bacillus subtilis 

strain RTI477 and Bacillus velezensis 

strain RTI301 in the Proposed 

Manufacturing-use Products 279– 

OAUT, 279–OAUI and End-use 

Products 279–OAUO, 279–OALN and 

279–OALR for FIFRA Section 3 

Registration with Tolerance Exemption 

Petitions’’ (Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477 and Bacillus velezensis strain 

RTI301 Human Health Assessment). 

This document, as well as other relevant 

information, is available in docket for 

this action as described under 

ADDRESSES. 

The available data demonstrated that, 

with regard to humans, Bacillus subtilis 

strain RTI477 is not toxic via the 

pulmonary, oral, or dermal routes of 

exposure and is not pathogenic or 

infective via the pulmonary route of 

exposure. Although there may be some 

dietary and non-occupational exposures 

to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477 when used in accordance with 

label directions and good agricultural 

practices, there is not a concern due to 

the lack of potential for adverse effects. 

Because there are no threshold levels of 

concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, 

or infectivity of Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477, EPA determined that no 

additional margin of safety is necessary 

to protect infants and children as part of 

the qualitative assessment conducted. 

Based upon its evaluation in the 

Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 and 

Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301 

Human Health Assessment, which 

concludes that there are no risks of 

concern from aggregate exposure to 

Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477, EPA 

concludes that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477. 

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 

because EPA is establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance without any numerical 

limitation. 

C. Conclusion 

Therefore, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain 

RTI477 in or on all food commodities 

when used in accordance with label 

directions and good agricultural 

practices. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes a tolerance 

exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) 

in response to a petition submitted to 

EPA. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance exemption in this action, 

do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

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

et seq.) do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or Tribes. As a 

result, this action does not alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

EPA has determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

States or Tribal Governments, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States or Tribal 

Governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

EPA’s consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act (15 

U.S.C. 272 note). 

V. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34145 

Dated: June 21, 2021. 

Edward Messina, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Add § 180.1384 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1384 Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477; 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 in or 

on all food commodities when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13804 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0475; FRL–10025–21] 

Bacillus velezensis Strain RTI301; 

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 Bacillus 

velezensis strain RTI301 in or on all 

food commodities when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. FMC 

Corporation submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of Bacillus 

velezensis strain RTI301 under FFDCA 

when used in accordance with this 

exemption. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

29, 2021. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 30, 2021 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: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0475, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. 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 OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Smith, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; main telephone number: 

(703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@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. 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. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Publishing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=

ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_

02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2019–0475 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing and must be received 

by the Hearing Clerk on or before 

August 30, 2021. Addresses for mail and 

hand delivery of objections and hearing 

requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b), although EPA strongly 

encourages those interested in 

submitting objections or a hearing 

request, to submit objections and 

hearing requests electronically. See 

Order Urging Electronic Service and 

Filing (April 10, 2020), https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_

order_urging_electronic_service_and_

filing.pdf. At this time, because of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the judges and 

staff of the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges are working remotely and not 

able to accept filings or correspondence 

by courier, personal delivery, or 

commercial delivery, and the ability to 

receive filings or correspondence by 

U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When 

submitting documents to the U.S. EPA 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ), a person should utilize the 

OALJ e-filing system, at https://

yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_

upload.nsf. 

Although EPA’s regulations require 

submission via U.S. Mail or hand 

delivery, EPA intends to treat 

submissions filed via electronic means 

as properly filed submissions during 

this time that the Agency continues to 

maximize telework due to the 

pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the 

preference for submission via electronic 

means will not be prejudicial. If it is 

impossible for a person to submit 

documents electronically or receive 

service electronically, e.g., the person 

does not have any access to a computer, 

the person shall so advise OALJ by 

contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 

564–6281. If a person is without access 

to a computer and must file documents 

by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the 

Hearing Clerk every time it files a 

document in such a manner. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1