Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23879 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined this direct 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. These amendments 

simply rename the title and move 

subparts to fit more appropriately in 

later subparts. There are no substantive 

changes to the regulation. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing these 

amendments 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 

amendments 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). This 

direct final rule will be effective on July 

28, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution, Indians—lands, Indians— 

tribal government. 

Dated: April 22, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, Part 49 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 49—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 49 

continues to read as follows: 

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

PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR 

QUALITY PLANNING AND 

MANAGEMENT 

■ 2. Revise the part heading for part 49 

as set forth above. §§ 49.22–49.24 

[Redesignated] 

■ 3. Redesignate § 49.22 in subpart A as 

§ 49.5511 in subpart L. 

■ 4. Redesignate § 49.23 in subpart A as 

§ 49.5512 in subpart L. 

■ 5. Redesignate § 49.24 in subpart A as 

§ 49.5513 in subpart L. 

■ 6. Add and reserve new §§ 49.22– 

49.24 in subpart A. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10321 Filed 4–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729; FRL–9299–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Removal of Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Programs for Clark and 

Floyd Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Indiana to allow the State to discontinue 

the vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties, IN, the Indiana portion of the 

Louisville (IN–KY) 1997 8-hour ozone 

area. The revision specifically provides 

that I/M program regulations be 

removed from the active control 

measures portion of the SIP. The 

regulations will remain in the 

contingency measures portion of the 

Clark and Floyd Counties ozone 

maintenance plans. EPA is approving 

Indiana’s request because the State has 

demonstrated that discontinuing the I/M 

program in Clark and Floyd Counties 

will not interfere with the attainment 

and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) or with the attainment and 

maintenance of other air quality 

standards and requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

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

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, 

will be publicly-available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo at 

(312) 886–6061 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
23880 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Clark and Floyd Counties were 

originally required to implement a 

‘‘basic’’ I/M program under section 

182(b)(4) of the CAA because they had 

been designated as part of the Louisville 

moderate 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. In order to maximize the emissions 

reductions from the I/M program, IDEM 

chose to implement an ‘‘enhanced’’ 

program in those areas and incorporated 

an on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

component into the program. EPA fully 

approved Indiana’s I/M program on 

March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142). The 

enhanced I/M program began operation 

in 1997, to help meet nonattainment 

area requirements for the ozone NAAQS 

effective at the time. The Louisville 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area was 

redesignated to attainment for that 

standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 

53665). 

Subsequently, Clark and Floyd 

Counties were designated as a portion of 

the IN–KY Louisville nonattainment 

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On November 15, 2006, IDEM submitted 

a request to redesignate the Indiana 

portion of the Louisville nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 8-hour 

NAAQS, and for EPA approval of a 

14-year maintenance plan for Clark and 

Floyd Counties. At the same time, IDEM 

requested EPA approval to terminate the 

I/M program in these counties. EPA 

approved the redesignation and 

maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd 

Counties on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 

39571). The approved maintenance plan 

shows that control measures in place in 

this area are sufficient for overall 

emissions to remain beneath the 

attainment level of emissions until the 

end of the maintenance period, even 

without operation of I/M. In addition, 

the conformity budget in the 

maintenance plan reflects mobile source 

emissions without I/M in future years, 

and the maintenance plan demonstrates 

that the applicable standard will 

continue to be met without I/M. See 72 

FR 26057, 26064–26065 (May 8, 2007). 

In accordance with the CAA and EPA 

redesignation guidance, states are free to 

adjust control strategies in the 

maintenance plan as long as they can 

demonstrate that the revision will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, or any 

other CAA requirements. See CAA 

sections 175A and 110(l). With such a 

demonstration of noninterference with 

attainment or other applicable 

requirements, control programs may be 

discontinued and removed from the SIP. 

However, section 175A(d) of the CAA 

requires that contingency measures in 

the maintenance plan include all 

measures in the SIP for the area before 

that area was redesignated to 

attainment. Since the I/M program was 

approved into the SIP prior to 

redesignation to attainment for ozone, 

the I/M program must be included in 

the contingency portion of the ozone 

maintenance plan as required by section 

175A(d). 

The SIP revision submitted by IDEM 

for Clark and Floyd Counties included 

a 110(l) demonstration that addressed 

all applicable requirements and a 

request that the Indiana I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties be moved 

from the active control measures portion 

of the SIP to the contingency measures 

portion of the Clark and Floyd Counties 

1997 8–Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

On January 12, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve Indiana’s request to 

discontinue operation of the I/M 

program in Clark and Floyd Counties 

(76 FR 2066). As noted in the proposal, 

in order to finalize this rulemaking EPA 

needed to complete rulemaking on a 

determination of attainment for PM2.5

for the Louisville area. EPA has 

subsequently published a final action 

determining that this area is attaining 

the PM2.5 NAAQS, published on March 

9, 2011, at 76 FR 12860. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposal to approve Indiana’s request 

closed on February 11, 2011. EPA 

received two comments. Those 

comments and EPA’s responses follow: 

Comment: ‘‘The notice of the 

proposed rule does not state that EPA 

conducted a modeling analysis to 

demonstrate that removal of the I/M 

program will not interfere with 

maintenance or attainment of the new 1- 

hour NOX [sic] NAAQS. It likely will. 

Therefore, EPA cannot approve this SIP 

modification without a quantitative 

analysis of its impacts on the 1-hour 

NOX [sic] NAAQS.’’ 

Response: In its notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA noted that the area is 

designated attainment for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) (addressing air quality for 

the annual standard) and that EPA has 

‘‘no reason to believe that 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties has caused or 

will cause the Louisville area to become 

nonattainment’’ for NO2 or other criteria 

pollutants. The commenter offered no 

data or supporting information on 

whether discontinuation of the I/M 

program would likely interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. In response to this 

comment, EPA further examined air 

quality data as part of an assessment of 

whether the discontinuation of the I/M 

program has interfered or might 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 air 

quality. 

No NO2 air quality monitors are 

currently located in Clark or Floyd 

Counties in Indiana. However, as noted 

above, Clark and Floyd Counties were 

included in the IN-KY Louisville 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and air quality data are 

collected nearby in Louisville, Kentucky 

(at site number 21–111–1021). Since 

Louisville is more urbanized and is also 

a higher traffic area than Clark and 

Floyd Counties, these air quality data 

provide a conservative representation of 

air quality in Clark and Floyd Counties 

for NO2. Furthermore, the impact of 

mobile sources is declining as newer 

cleaner vehicles replace older dirtier 

vehicles. Accordingly, the impact of 

discontinuing the I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties is expected to 

decline in the future as well. For the 

most recent 3-year period with certified, 

quality assured data (2007 to 2009), the 

design value (i.e., the NO2 concentration 

computed for comparison to the 1-hour 

standard) for this site was 53 parts per 

billion, well below the standard of 100 

parts per billion. 

These three years are a period when 

the I/M program both in Louisville and 

in Clark and Floyd Counties had been 

discontinued. Therefore, the air quality 

data from this period (and mobile 

source emission trends) provide a basis 

for concluding that the discontinuation 

of the I/M program has not interfered 

and will not interfere with attainment 

and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2

standard. While the commenter did not 

address the annual average NO2

standard, the annual average design 

value for the Louisville site is 14 parts 

per billion, well below the 53 parts per 

billion standard; thus EPA also finds 

that the discontinuation of the I/M 

program has not interfered and will not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the annual average NO2

standard. 

Comment: ‘‘From my point of view, 

these plans are good in different 

perspectives because the good is that it 

could help the state to cut down the 

budget for the two counties in I/M 

program as it doesn’t involve equipment 

and technologies to maintain it while 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23881 

the bad thing is that the emission could 

destroy the ozone layer and harm 

people’s health which is worse because 

people get sick and people that own the 

cars neglect to have their cars inspected 

as they don’t have people to warn and 

check them so it has both pros and cons. 

Even though, they keep the program 

as an emergency plan but for the best 

interest of the people or to prevent 

global warming, the state or EPA should 

study thoroughly about the advantages 

and disadvantages of the plans in order 

to prevent bad things from happening in 

the future. Although, it could help to 

save money but it could not save 

human’s life when something bad 

happens. So for the best interest, it 

would be better not to remove the 

program but keep it to check once in a 

while or issue the people in those two 

counties a letter to have their cars 

inspected regularly according to state’s 

law in order to make them alert and be 

aware of their vehicle’s problem.’’ 

Response: EPA recognizes that there 

would be advantages as well as 

disadvantages to continuing to operate 

the I/M program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties. However, at issue in this 

rulemaking is whether discontinuation 

would be consistent with CAA 

provisions, including whether 

discontinuation might interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of air 

quality standards and whether other 

criteria for discontinuation of programs 

have been met. EPA notes that the 

NAAQS are required by the CAA to be 

set to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety, and that EPA 

is finding that approval of this revision 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA 

believes that the applicable criteria for 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties have been met 

and therefore the revision should be 

approved. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Indiana’s demonstration that 

eliminating the I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties will not interfere 

with the attainment and maintenance of 

the ozone NAAQS or with the 

attainment and maintenance of other air 

quality standards and requirements of 

the CAA. We are further approving 

Indiana’s request to modify the SIP such 

that I/M is no longer an active program 

in Clark and Floyd Counties and is 

instead a contingency measure in the 

area’s maintenance plan. 

For the reasons stated in the proposed 

notice, EPA believes that Indiana has 

satisfied the requirements for 

discontinuing I/M in Clark and Floyd 

Counties. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 28, 2011. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 20, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Section 52.777 is amended by 

adding paragraph (rr) to read as follows: 

§ 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical 

oxidants (hydrocarbons). 

* * * * * 

(rr) Approval—EPA is approving a 

request submitted by the State of 

Indiana on October 10, 2006, and 

supplemented on November 15, 2006, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
23882 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008, 

April 23, 2010 and November 19, 2010, 

to discontinue the vehicle inspection 

and maintenance (I/M) program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties. The submittal also 

includes Indiana’s demonstration that 

eliminating the I/M programs in Clark 

and Floyd Counties will not interfere 

with the attainment and maintenance of 

the ozone NAAQS and the fine 

particulate NAAQS and with the 

attainment and maintenance of other air 

quality standards and requirements of 

the CAA. We are further approving 

Indiana’s request to modify the SIP such 

that I/M is no longer an active program 

in these areas and is instead a 

contingency measure in this area’s 

maintenance plan. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10323 Filed 4–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0308; FRL–8869–1] 

Metiram; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of metiram in or 

on bananas and wine grapes. BASF 

Corporation requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

29, 2011. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 28, 2011, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2005–0308. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

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

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

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

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

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Ertman, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9367; e-mail address: 

ertman.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/

text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, 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–2005–0308 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 June 28, 2011. 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 that does not 

contain any 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 a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0308, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register issue of 

November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71829) (FRL– 

7747–2), EPA issued a notice pursuant 

to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 9E6006) by BASF 

Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the fungicide metiram: A 

mixture of 5.2 parts by weight of 

ammoniates of 

ethylenebis(dithiocarbamato) zinc with 

1 part by weight 

ethylenebis(dithiocarbamic acid) 

bimolecular and trimolecular cyclic 

anhydrosulfides and disulfides, 

calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate in or on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES