42324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0748; FRL–9217–02– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

(MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). We are 

approving rescissions of local rules that 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0748. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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 through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La 

Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3245 or by 

email at evans.lakenya@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 10, 2022 (87 FR 7784), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

following rule rescissions into the 

Arizona SIP. 

Rule No. Title Local adopted date SIP approved date FR citation 

27 ..................................... Performance Tests .................................... June 23, 1980 ........... April 12, 1982 ............ 47 FR 15579 

32 A ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (General 

prohibitions).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

32 B ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Treatment or processing of animal or vegetable matter).August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

32 C ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Storage 

requirements).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

32 D ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Stack, 

vent, or other outlet).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

32 E ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Hydrogen 

sulfide).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

32 F ................................. Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Relating 

to sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

34 A ................................. Organic Solvents-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326 

34 D.1 .............................. Dry Cleaning .............................................. June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326 

34 E.1 .............................. Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating 

Operations (General Requirements).

June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326 

34 E.3 .............................. Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating 

Operations (Architectural Coating).

June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326 

34 L .................................. Cutback Asphalt ........................................ June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326 

81 ..................................... Operation ................................................... August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080 

340 ................................... Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt ............... September 13, 1988 .. February 1, 1996 ....... 61 FR 3578 

We proposed to approve the 

rescission of these rules because we 

determined that the rescissions comply 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rules and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received one comment 

from the City of Phoenix in support of 

the EPA’s February 10, 2022 proposed 

action to rescind the proposed rules 

from the Arizona’s SIP. We 

acknowledge the comment, and we are 

approving the rescissions of these rules 

from the SIP. We also received one 

anonymous comment which we respond 

to below. 

Comment: The commenter’s primary 

concern with the EPA’s proposed action 

is that it appears to ‘‘remov[e] 

longstanding local rules regarding air 

quality, due to the fact that those same 

standards are covered nationally,’’ 

which would be problematic if ‘‘this 

rule change was requested with the 

intention of ultimately undoing national 

standards.’’ The commenter notes that if 

a potential change in the national 

standards took place, ‘‘[rolling back air 

quality standards] would be far 

smoother than if the local rules were 

still in the way of those whose aim is 

government deregulation at the expense 

of the environment.’’ They recommend 

that these rules remain in place as ‘‘a 

backup option to keeping important 

public health rules.’’ The commenter 

also raises environmental justice 

concerns with respect to the proposed 

SIP modification and stresses the need 

to maintain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) to protect 

marginalized communities within the 

Phoenix and South Phoenix area. 

EPA’s Response: As we noted in our 

February 10, 2022 proposed rule, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42325 

1See 78 FR 34178, 34211 (June 6, 2013). 

2See TSD, Docket ID: EPA–R09–OAR–2021– 

0748. 

3 61 FR 5688 (February 7, 1996). 

4See id. at 5689. 

modifications to a SIP must comply 

with all requirements of the CAA. The 

CAA contains several anti-backsliding 

provisions, which preclude a state from 

altering or removing provisions from an 

approved implementation plan if the 

revision would reduce air quality 

protection.1 For example, under CAA 

section 110(l), a SIP revision cannot be 

approved if it will interfere with 

attainment or other applicable CAA 

requirements. In addition, CAA section 

193 prohibits any control measure in 

effect in a nonattainment area prior to 

the enactment of the CAA Amendments 

of 1990 to be modified after enactment, 

unless such modification yields 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions. Consistent with these antibacksliding provisions, there are 

circumstances in which it may be 

reasonable to relieve states of 

requirements that are no longer 

necessary, or that can be replaced by 

other forms of protection that might 

better meet the local needs and 

circumstances of an area. 

As we stated in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) to our proposal,2 the 

State of Arizona submitted Maricopa 

County’s Air Quality Regulations for 

approval into the Arizona SIP on 

January 28, 1972. The MCAQD revised 

various rules in the 1980s to reflect CAA 

requirements to implement reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

various source categories and to 

generally modernize their local rule 

book. The revised rules were 

renumbered from the existing two-digit 

system to a three-digit system with the 

unamended two-digit rules remaining in 

the SIP. Some of the locally revised 

rules were not submitted to the EPA for 

inclusion into the SIP at the time. As a 

result, there is a difference in 

requirements between some of the SIP 

approved two-digit rules and the locally 

adopted three-digit rules which can be 

a problem when the EPA, MCAQD, the 

regulated community, or the public is 

trying to determine the applicable rule. 

This is known as a SIP gap. In April 

2016, the EPA analyzed this SIP gap to 

determine if the older two-digit rules 

could potentially be replaced by newer 

provisions that are currently only 

locally applicable. This analysis had 

several recommendations for updating 

the SIP, including the recission of 

obsolete two- and three-digit rules 

without replacement. 

The SIP recissions from our February 

10, 2022 proposed rule fall into four 

categories: (1) nine provisions that do 

not establish emission limits, enforce 

the NAAQS, or improve or impact the 

stringency of other measures in the SIP; 

(2) two provisions related to a source 

category subject to a control techniques 

guideline (CTG) document, for which 

the State submitted and the EPA 

approved a negative declaration stating 

that there are no sources in the 

nonattainment area covered by that 

CTG; (3) two provisions that have been 

superseded by newer SIP-approved 

rules; and (4) one provision that is not 

enforceable. Further explanation on the 

EPA’s rationale for the proposed 

approval is provided below. 

For the first category, Rule 27, Rule 32 

sections A, C, D, and Rule 34 section E 

do not contain specific emissions limits 

or other elements necessary for 

enforcement. For example, Rule 32 

section C states: 

Materials including, but not limited to, 

solvents or other volatile compounds, paints, 

acids, alkalies, pesticides, fertilizer and 

manure shall be processed, stored, used and 

transported in such a manner and by such 

means that they will not unreasonably 

evaporate, leak, escape or be otherwise 

discharged into the ambient air so as to cause 

or contribute to air pollution; and where 

means are available to reduce effectively the 

contribution to air pollution from 

evaporation, leakage or discharge, the 

installation and use of such control methods, 

devices or equipment shall be mandatory. 

This provision contains no specific 

work practice, emission limitation, or 

enforcement mechanism that would 

result in the reduction of emissions. 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded, 

based on a CAA section 110(l) analysis, 

that removal of this provision would not 

interfere with Maricopa County’s 

progress toward attainment, reasonable 

further progress (RFP), or any other 

applicable CAA requirement. 

Additionally, Rule 32 sections B and 

E, Rule 34 section D.1, and Rule 81 do 

not regulate categories of emissions 

related to any NAAQS, and thus do not 

contribute to Maricopa County’s 

attainment of the NAAQS. For example, 

Rule 34 section D.1 regulates the 

emission of perchloroethylene. In 1996, 

the EPA deleted perchloroethylene from 

the definition of VOC on the basis that 

the chemical has negligible 

photochemical reactivity.3 Because 

these emissions are no longer 

considered VOC emissions under the 

CAA, Maricopa County can no longer 

consider their reduction as progress 

towards attaining the NAAQS.4 Thus, 

the EPA has concluded, based on a 

110(l) analysis, that removal of the 

provision will not interfere with the 

area’s progress towards attainment or 

any other applicable CAA requirement. 

Additional analysis for each provision 

in this category can be found in the TSD 

in the docket for the proposal. 

For the second category, Rule 34 

section L and Rule 340 contain similar 

requirements for the regulation of 

cutback asphalt, which is a source 

category subject to the CTG EPA–450/2– 

77–037 ‘‘Cutback Asphalt.’’ When there 

are no existing sources in a 

nonattainment area covered by a 

particular CTG document, or no major 

non-CTG sources of NOx or VOC, states 

may, in lieu of adopting RACT 

requirements for those sources, adopt 

negative declarations certifying that 

there are no such sources in the relevant 

nonattainment area. The State 

submitted, and the EPA approved, a 

negative declaration in Maricopa 

County on January 7, 2021, (86 FR 971) 

for cutback asphalt. This negative 

declaration applies to both Rule 34 

section L and Rule 340. Therefore, the 

EPA has concluded, based on a 110(l) 

analysis, that because there are no 

sources of emissions being regulated by 

Rule 34 section L and Rule 340 in the 

nonattainment area, removal of these 

provisions will not interfere with 

Maricopa County’s progress towards 

attainment or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. 

For the third category, Rule 32 section 

F and Rule 34 section A were both 

superseded by subsequent SIP 

submissions from Maricopa County. 

Rule 32 section F was superseded by 

SIP Rule 510, ‘‘Air Quality Standards’’ 

(86 FR 54628, October 04, 2021), and 

Rule 34 section A was superseded by an 

updated definition for VOC in the SIP, 

Maricopa Rule 100, ‘‘General Provisions 

and Definitions’’ (84 FR 13543, April 5, 

2019). We conclude that the actions 

approving Rule 100 and Rule 510 into 

the SIP are adequate to ensure the 

removal of Rule 32 section F and Rule 

34 section A would not interfere with 

Maricopa County’s progress towards 

attainment, RFP, or any other applicable 

CAA requirement. 

For the fourth category, there are no 

test methods that apply to the regulation 

in Rule 34 section E.1, which requires 

surface coating operations to utilize an 

‘‘enclosed area designed to contain not 

less than ninety-six percent (96%) by 

weight of the overspray.’’ Without a test 

method that can determine if a spray 

enclosure can capture 96% of the 

overspray, the provision is 

unenforceable and has no impact on the 

air quality in Maricopa County. The 

EPA finds that the provision’s removal 

would therefore not interfere with 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

5 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

6The provisions of Rule 34 were inadvertently 

omitted from our original action converting the 

Arizona SIP to the tabular notebook format on 

November 23, 2016 (81 FR 85038). We will recodify 

the remaining paragraphs of Rule 34 (consistent 

with this action’s rescissions) in a separate 

rulemaking, and as such, our regulatory text will 

not address any conflicting provisions. 7 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

attainment, RFP, or any other applicable 

CAA requirement. 

The provisions proposed to be 

rescinded from the Arizona SIP 

generally do not achieve emission 

reductions or are already codified 

elsewhere in the SIP. The removal of 

these rules would not impact the overall 

stringency of the Arizona SIP, and as a 

result, the approval of this rule action 

will allow Maricopa to maintain rules in 

the SIP that implement, maintain, and 

enforce the NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal 

regulations.5 Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. As 

described in our proposed rule and 

reiterated here, approval of these 

recissions complies with CAA sections 

110(l) and 193 because these SIP 

revisions would not interfere with any 

applicable CAA requirements, including 

requirements concerning RFP and 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule 

recissions as described in our proposed 

action. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is 

fully approving these rule recissions 

into the Arizona SIP. The rule recissions 

will remove the previously approved 

Rule 27, Rule 32 sections A (all 

subsections), B, C, D, E, and F; Rule 34 

sections A, D.1, E.1, E.3 and L (all 

subsections); Rule 81; and Rule 340 

from the SIP.6

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. The EPA is 

also finalizing deletion of rules that 

were previously incorporated by 

reference from the applicable Arizona 

SIP. In accordance with requirements of 

1 CFR 51.5, as discussed in Sections I, 

II and III of this preamble, the EPA is 

finalizing the incorporation by reference 

for the rescission of the Arizona rules 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by the 

EPA for removal from the SIP and will 

be incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.7 The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

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. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

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

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 13, 

2022. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur Oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42327 

Dated: July 7, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends part 52, chapter 

I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart D—Arizona 

§ 52.120 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.120 in paragraph (c) amend 

‘‘Table 4 to Paragraph (c)—EPAApproved Maricopa County Air 

Pollution Control Regulations’’ by 

removing the entries for ‘‘Rule 27’’, 

‘‘Rule 32 (Paragraphs A through F 

only)’’, ‘‘Rule 81’’, and ‘‘Rule 340’’. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15026 Filed 7–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0185; FRL–9925–01– 

OCSPP] 

Benoxacor; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends 

tolerances for residues of benoxacor in 

or on field corn, popcorn, and sweet 

corn commodities when used as an inert 

ingredient (herbicide safener) in 

pesticide formulations. Management 

Contract Service, Inc., on behalf of 

Landis International, submitted a 

petition requesting this tolerance 

amendment under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

15, 2022. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 13, 2022 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–2021–0185, is 

available at https://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 and OPP Docket 

is (202) 566–1744. Please review the 

visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Registration 

Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (202) 566–1030; 

email address: RDFRNotices@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 Office of the Federal 

Register’s e-CFR site at https://

www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40. 

C. 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–2021–0185 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 

September 13, 2022. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

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– 

2021–0185, by one of the following 

methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://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 https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of June 1, 2021 

(86 FR 29229), EPA issued a document 

pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of 

a pesticide petition (PP IN–11407) filed 

by Management Contract Services, Inc. 

on behalf of Landis International, Inc., 

P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603. The 

petition requested that EPA amend the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.460 for residues 

of benoxacor (4-(dichloroacetyl)-3,4- 

dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazine) 

(CAS Reg. No. 98730–04–2) as an inert 

safener in or on the raw agricultural 

commodity for which tolerances have 

been established for metolachlor or Smetolachlor at 0.01 ppm for all pesticide 

formulations. The published petition 

summary requested to amend benoxacor 

tolerances when used as a pesticide 

inert ingredient (safener) in pesticide 

formulations to include any herbicide in 

or on raw agricultural commodities for 

which tolerances have been established 

at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by the petitioner, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1