64908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

establishment of a temporary safety 

zone. This rule is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0812 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0812 Safety Zone, Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway; Emerald Isle, NC. 

(a) Regulated area. The following area 

is a safety zone: This zone includes the 

waters directly under and 100 yards 

either side of the NC 58 Fixed Bridge 

crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, 

North Carolina (latitude 34°40′28′′ N, 

longitude 077°03′56′′ W). 

(b) Regulations. The general safety 

zone regulations found in 33 CFR 

165.23 apply to the safety zone created 

by this temporary section, § 165.T05– 

0812. In addition the following 

regulations apply: 

(1) All vessels requiring greater than 

50 feet horizontal clearance to safely 

transit through the NC 58 Fixed Bridge 

crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, 

North Carolina must contact the work 

supervisor on VHF–FM marine band 

radio channels 13 and 16 one hour in 

advance of intended transit. 

(2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing 

this safety zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio channels 

13 and 16. 

(3) The operator of any vessel within 

or in the immediate vicinity of this 

safety zone shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign, and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(c) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port 

North Carolina means the Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina or 

any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant 

or petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port to act on his 

behalf. 

(2) Designated representative means 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

North Carolina to assist in enforcing the 

safety zone described in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(3) Work Supervisor means the 

contractors on site representative. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted by Federal, State 

and local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 p.m. December 

12, 2012 through 8 p.m. February 14, 

2013 unless cancelled earlier by the 

Captain of the Port. 

Dated: October 4, 2012. 

A. Popiel, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26154 Filed 10–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846; FRL–9743–8] 

Extension of Administrative Stay; 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Determination 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending for an 

additional 45 days the existing 

administrative stay of the final rule 

titled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Determination’’ 

under the authority of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

EPA previously stayed this rule for 90 

days, from July 16, 2012 until October 

15, 2012. This action extends the 

existing administrative stay by an 

additional 45 days to allow for 

additional time for further discussions 

of alternatives to EPA’s Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). Today’s 

action reflects this stay in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

DATES: 40 CFR 52.1628 is stayed from 

October 15, 2012 until November 29, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Federal eRulemaking portal index at 

http://www.regulations.gov and are 

available either electronically at http:// 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64909 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, 

TX, 75202–2733. To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

A reasonable fee may be charged for 

copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Agustin Carbo-Lugo, EPA Region 6, 

(214) 665–8037, CarboLugo.Agustin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘our,’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’ is 

used, we mean the EPA. Unless 

otherwise specified, when we say the 

‘‘San Juan Generating Station,’’ or 

‘‘SJGS,’’ we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, 

inclusive. 

I. Background 

On August 22, 2011, the EPA 

published a final rule disapproving a 

portion of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision received from the 

State of New Mexico on September 17, 

2007, for the purpose of addressing the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standards) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (the ‘‘NM FIP 

Rule’’). 76 FR 52388. In that action, EPA 

disapproved the New Mexico Interstate 

Transport SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from 

New Mexico sources do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to protect visibility. We found that New 

Mexico sources, except the San Juan 

Generating Station (SJGS), were 

sufficiently controlled to eliminate 

interference from those sources with the 

visibility programs of other states. EPA 

promulgated a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) requiring the implementation 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission limits necessary 

at the San Juan Generating Station to 

prevent such interference. This FIP also 

addresses the Regional Haze (RH) Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirement for NOX for SJGS. In 

addition, EPA implemented sulfuric 

acid (H2SO4) hourly emission limits at 

the SJGS, to minimize the contribution 

of this compound to visibility 

impairment. Finally, we found that 

compliance with the NOX, SO2, and 

H2SO4 emission limits must be within 5 

years of the effective date of our final 

rule consistent with the requirements of 

the regional haze regulations. 

Petitions for judicial review of the 

final rule were subsequently filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Tenth Circuit. The petitioners bringing 

those challenges are WildEarth 

Guardians, Public Service of New 

Mexico (PNM), and New Mexico 

Governor Susana Martinez with the 

New Mexico Environment Department. 

By a letter to the EPA Administrator, 

dated April 26, 2012, the Governor of 

New Mexico requested ‘‘a short term 

(90-day) stay’’ of the federal 

implementation plan to evaluate the 

potential for alternatives to the rule 

requirements. She presents a stay as 

being necessary for ‘‘meaningful, 

productive negotiations’’ that may lead 

to an avoidance of litigation. By a letter 

to the acting Regional Administrator of 

EPA Region 6, dated May 8, 2012, PNM 

also requested ‘‘an opportunity to 

engage in productive discussions as 

proposed by Governor Martinez.’’ In 

response to these requests, EPA stayed 

the effectiveness of its rule for 90 days. 

77 FR 41697 (July 16, 2012). This 

temporary stay is set to expire on 

October 15, 2012. 

We now believe that additional time 

is warranted so that the State of New 

Mexico can provide additional 

information required for EPA to 

consider the state’s alternative and for 

further discussions among the 

stakeholders. The extension of time will 

allow EPA, the State of New Mexico and 

stakeholders to discuss New Mexico’s 

new plan proposal, or additional ideas 

that could prove beneficial in creating a 

state plan that would ultimately satisfy 

the requirements of the CAA. 

II. Today’s Final Rule 

A. Issuance of a Stay and Delay of the 

Effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule 

Pursuant to section 705 of the APA, 

the EPA hereby extends the existing 

administrative stay of the effectiveness 

of the NM FIP Rule for a period of an 

additional 45 days beyond the current 

expiration date of October 15, 2012. By 

this action, we are extending the 

administrative stay of the effectiveness 

of the rule published in the Federal 

Register on August 22, 2011 (76 FR 

52388). This stay of effectiveness will 

remain in place for an additional 45 

days, which will expire on November 

29, 2012. This action adds a note to 40 

CFR 52.1628 that there is a 135 day stay 

of the effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule, 

but, in its substance, it does not alter 

any future compliance requirements. 

There are no compliance obligations 

under the terms of the NM FIP that arise 

during the 135 day period. 

Under section 705 of the APA, ‘‘an 

agency * * * may postpone the 

effective date of [an] action taken by it 

pending judicial review.’’ This source of 

authority requires an Agency finding 

that ‘‘justice requires’’ a temporary stay 

of rule requirements. Accordingly, as 

groundwork for the mentioned 

discussions among the Agency, the State 

of New Mexico, and other stakeholders, 

EPA now finds that justice requires an 

additional 45-day stay of the rule’s 

effectiveness. Our extension of the 

temporary stay of the effectiveness of 

the NM FIP Rule applies only to any 

requirements established in 40 CFR 

52.1628 during the duration of the stay, 

as described previously in the initial 90- 

day stay. 

B. Basis for Making This Action 

Effective October 15, 2012 

The EPA also believes that there is 

good cause to make today’s action 

effective immediately, rather than 

effective within 30 days, within the 

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). One 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final action takes effect. Whereas 

here, this action extends the stay that is 

already in effect, and any delay in its 

effectiveness will result in unnecessary 

delays for productive negotiations. 

Therefore, balancing the necessity for 

immediate implementation against 

principles of fundamental fairness, 

which require that all affected persons 

be afforded a reasonable amount of time 

to prepare for the effective date of this 

action, EPA has determined that it is 

unnecessary, impracticable and contrary 

to the public interest to delay this 

action. Additionally, since this action 

does not ‘‘implement, interpret, or 

prescribe law or policy,’’ within the 

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), nor makes 

changes to substantive requirements, 

EPA concludes that it does not 

constitute a substantive rulemaking. 

Therefore, it is not subject to notice and 

comment requirements. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This action will extend the current 

administrative stay of the NM FIP for an 

additional 45 days and imposes no 

additional requirements. This type of 

action is exempt from review under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, a ‘‘collection 

of information’’ is defined as a 

requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons * * *.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the temporary stay is for the 

effectiveness of a rule that applies to a 

single facility, (SJGS), the Paperwork 

Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 

CFR part 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR 

are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

rule that will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA 

applies only to rules subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the APA or any other statute. This 

action is not subject to notice and 

comment requirements under the APA 

or any other statute because, although 

subject to the APA, this action does not 

‘‘implement, interpret, or prescribe law 

or policy,’’ within the meaning of APA 

§ 551(4). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that this temporary stay 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures that exceed 

the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold 

of $100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

1-year. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action will extend the current 

administrative stay of the NM FIP for an 

additional 45 days and imposes no 

additional requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This temporary stay does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely is an extension to stay the 

effectiveness of a final rule. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

EPA will consult and coordinate with 

Tribes regarding BART alternatives 

during the stay, however, this temporary 

stay does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

it neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. Furthermore, 

this action does not ‘‘implement, 

interpret, or prescribe law or policy,’’ 

within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551(4), 

and therefore, it does not constitute a 

substantive rulemaking. As such, this 

action only grants a 90-day stay of the 

effectiveness of the NM FIP Rule 

without altering any future established 

compliance requirements. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This extension of a temporary stay is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not a rule of general 

applicability, it is not economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and does not have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This extension of a temporary stay is 

not subject to the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(‘‘NTTAA’’). Section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA, Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64911 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This extension of a temporary stay is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898. 

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. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not change the substance of 40 CFR 

52.1628. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act (‘‘CRA’’). The 

CRA, 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 Section 804 (3) of the 

CRA defines ‘‘rule’’ as having the same 

meaning given to such term in section 

551 of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 551(4). 

Since this action is not designed to 

implement, interpret, or prescribe law 

or policy, within the meaning of APA, 

this action is exempted from the 

reporting requirements of the CRA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, 

Interstate transport of pollution, 

Regional haze, Best available control 

technology. 

Dated: October 12, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26089 Filed 10–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0677; FRL–9365–7] 

Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for combined residues of 

fluoxastrobin and its Z-isomer in or on 

poultry, liver; hog, fat; hog, meat 

byproducts; and rice, grain. Arysta 

LifeScience, North America, LLC, 

requested these tolerances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 24, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 24, 2012, 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–2009–0677, 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), EPA West 

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. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Garvie, Registration Division 

(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–0034; email address: 

garvie.heather@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 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=/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, 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–2009–0677 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 December 24, 2012. 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– 

2009–0677, 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES