Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25153 

(i) An old group is a brother-sister 

controlled group of corporations, 

determined by applying paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section as in effect 

before the amendments made by TD 

8179, that is not a brother-sister 

controlled group of corporations, 

determined by applying paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section as amended by 

such Treasury decision; and 

(ii) An old member is any corporation 

that is a member of an old group. 

(5) Election to choose between 

membership in more than one 

controlled group—(i) In general. A 

corporation may make an election under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section by filing 

an amended return on or before 

September 2, 1988 if— 

(A) An old member has filed an 

election under paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section to be treated as a component 

member of an old group for a December 

31st before March 2, 1988; and 

(B) That corporation would (without 

regard to such paragraph (c)(2)) be a 

component member of more than one 

brother-sister controlled group (not 

including an old group) on December 

31st. 

(ii) Exception. This paragraph (d)(5) 

does not apply to a corporation that is 

treated as a member of an old group 

under paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(6) Refunds. See section 6511(a) for 

period of limitation on filing claims for 

credit or refund. 

(e) Effective/applicability date. This 

section applies to taxable years 

beginning on or after May 26, 2009. 

However, taxpayers may apply this 

section to taxable years beginning before 

May 26, 2009. For taxable years 

beginning before May 26, 2009, see 

§ 1.1563–1T as contained in 26 CFR part 

1 in effect on April 1, 2009. 

§ 1.1563–1T [Removed] 

■ Par. 3. Section 1.1563–1T is removed. 

§ 1.1563–3 [Amended] 

■ Par. 4. Section 1.1563–3(d)(3), 

Example 3, is amended by removing the 

language ‘‘§ 1.1563–1T’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 1.1563–1’’ in its place. 

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

UNDER THE PAPERWORK 

REDUCTION ACT 

■ Par. 5. The authority citation for part 

602 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. 

■ Par. 6. In § 602.101, paragraph (b) is 

amended as follows: 

■ 1. The following entry to the tables is 

removed: 

§ 602.101 OMB Control Numbers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

identified or described 

Current 

OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

1.1563–1T ................................. 1545–2019 

* * * * * 

■ 2. The following entry is added in 

numerical order to the table: 

§ 602.101 OMB Control Numbers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

identified or described 

Current 

OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

1.1563–1 ................................... 1545–2019 

* * * * * 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: May 20, 2009. 

Michael F. Mundaca, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 

(Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–12296 Filed 5–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0133; FRL–8909–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Determination of Attainment 

of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard for the 

Ventura County Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 15, 2009, the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

requested that EPA find that the Ventura 

County ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the revoked 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). After a review of this 

submission and of the relevant 

monitoring data, EPA is making such a 

finding. 

Because the area has attained the 1- 

hour standard by the applicable 

attainment date, the area is not subject 

to the requirement to implement 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain the standard by its attainment 

date. In addition, EPA finds that the 

area is not subject to the Clean Air Act 

penalty fee requirements for severe and 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas that 

have not attained the 1-hour standard by 

the applicable attainment date. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 27, 

2009 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 26, 

2009. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule does not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09– 

OAR–2009–0133, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (415) 947–3579. 

4. Mail or Delivery: Greg Nudd (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR-2009– 

0133. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless a 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g. copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g. confidential 

business information). 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Nudd, Environmental Engineer, EPA 

Region IX, (415) 947–4107, 

nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Is the Background for This Action? 

II. How Does the SCAQMD Decision 

Regarding EPA’s 8-Hour Phase 1 Ozone 

Implementation Rule Affect This Action? 

III. Attainment Finding 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the Ventura 

County, California area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS by operation of law upon 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. Under section 181(a) of 

the CAA, each ozone area designated 

nonattainment under section 107(d) was 

also classified by operation of law as 

‘‘marginal,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ 

‘‘severe-15,’’ ‘‘severe-17,’’ or ‘‘extreme,’’ 

depending on the severity of the area’s 

air quality problem and the number of 

years to reach attainment from the time 

of the CAA Amendments. 

The ozone design value for an area, 

which characterizes the severity of the 

air quality problem, is represented by 

the highest ozone design value at any of 

the individual ozone monitoring sites in 

the area. Table 1 in section 181(a) of the 

CAA provides the design value ranges 

for each nonattainment classification. 

Ozone nonattainment areas with design 

values between 0.180 parts per million 

(ppm) and 0.190 ppm for the three-year 

period, 1987–1989, were classified as 

severe-15. Because the Ventura County, 

California area’s 1988 ozone design 

value fell between 0.180 and 0.190 ppm, 

this area was classified as severe-15 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These nonattainment 

designations and classifications were 

codified in title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 81 (see 

56 FR 56994, November 6, 1991). 

Under section 182(c) of the CAA, 

states containing areas that were 

classified as severe-15 nonattainment 

were required to submit State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to provide 

for certain emission controls, to show 

progress toward attainment, and to 

provide for attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than November 15, 2005. 

The State of California included plans 

for bringing Ventura County into 

attainment with the 1-hour ozone 

standard in their 1994 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that 

EPA approved on January 8, 1997 (62 

FR 1150). Specifically, EPA approved 

the Ventura 1994 ozone SIP with respect 

to the Act’s requirements for emission 

inventories, control measures, 

modeling, demonstrations of 15% Rate 

of Progress (ROP), post-1996 ROP and 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

In 1997, EPA adopted a new 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. One of the 

implementation rules for the standard, 

referred to as the Phase 1 

Implementation Rule, was published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), and 

addressed how requirements that 

applied in an area for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS would apply in the transition 

from the 1-hour standard to the 8-hour 

standard. Challenges to this rule were 

decided in South Coast Air Quality 

Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (DC Cir. 2006) (SCAQMD), 

rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245, which 

we considered in this action. 

II. How Does the SCAQMD Decision 

Regarding EPA’s 8-Hour Phase 1 Ozone 

Implementation Rule Affect This 

Action? 

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

Ozone Standard. SCAQMD v. EPA, 472 

F.3d 882. On June 8, 2007, in response 

to several petitions for clarification and 

rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that 

the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with 

regard to those parts of the rule that had 

been successfully challenged. 489 F.3d 

1245. With respect to the challenges to 

the anti-backsliding provisions of the 

rule, the Court vacated three provisions 

that would have allowed States to 

remove from the SIP or to not adopt 

three SIP obligations related to the 1- 

hour ozone standard once the 1-hour 

ozone standard was revoked: (1) 

Nonattainment area new source review 

(NSR) requirements based on an area’s 

1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) 

section 185 penalty fees for severe or 

extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas that fail to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the 1-hour ozone attainment 

date; and (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS 

or for failure to attain that NAAQS. The 

Court clarified that 1-hour ozone 

conformity determinations are not 

required for anti-backsliding purposes. 

Thus, the provisions waiving these 

three requirements, which were 

specified in 40 CFR 51.905(e), were 

vacated by the Court. As a result of the 

vacatur, States must continue to meet 

the obligations for 1-hour ozone NSR; 1- 

hour ozone contingency measures; and, 

for severe and extreme areas, the 

obligations related to a section 185 fee 

program. EPA has issued a proposed 

rule that would remove the vacated 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e) and that 

addresses treatment of contingency 

measures for failure to attain or make 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour standard. See 

74 FR 2936, January 16, 2009 (proposed 

rule); 74 FR 7027, February 12, 2009 

(notice of public hearing and extension 

of comment period). EPA is developing 

a proposed rule to address treatment of 

1-hour NSR and section 185 fees for 

failure to attain the 1-hour standard. 

We address below how the 1-hour 

ozone obligations that currently 

continue to apply as a result of the 

Court’s vacatur of the waiver provisions 

are treated where EPA makes a 

determination that the area attained the 

1-hour ozone standard by its attainment 

date. 

III. Attainment Finding 

In 1991, the Ventura County, 

California area was classified as severe15 for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. An 

area is considered to have attained the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no 

violations of the standard, as 

determined in accordance with the 

regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9 and 

the related regulatory appendix, 40 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix H, based on three 

consecutive calendar years of complete, 

quality-assured monitoring data. A 

violation occurs when the ozone air 

quality monitoring data show greater 

than one (1.0) average expected 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25155 

exceedance per year at any site in the 

area. An exceedance occurs when the 

maximum hourly ozone concentration 

during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. In 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, the 

data should be collected and qualityassured and recorded in the Air Quality 

System so that they are available to the 

public for review. 

The finding of attainment for the 

Ventura County, California area is based 

on an analysis of 1-hour ozone air 

quality data from 2003–2005. Table 1 

summarizes these data. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR BY MONITORS IN VENTURA COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA (2003–2005) 

Monitor Site ID 2003 2004 2005 

Average 

number of 

expected 

exceedances 

(2003–2005) 

Thousand Oaks .................................................................... 06–111–0007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Piru ....................................................................................... 06–111–0009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Ojai ....................................................................................... 06–111–1004 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Simi Valley ........................................................................... 06–111–2002 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Ventura ................................................................................. 06–111–2003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

El Rio ................................................................................... 06–111–3001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Based on the monitoring data 

summarized in Table 1, the EPA finds 

that the Ventura County, California area 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its 

attainment date of November 15, 2005. 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR BY MONITORS IN VENTURA COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA (2006–2008) 

Monitor Site ID 2006 2007 2008 

Average 

number of 

expected 

exceedances 

(2003–2005) 

Thousand Oaks .................................................................... 06–111–0007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Piru ....................................................................................... 06–111–0009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Ojai ....................................................................................... 06–111–1004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Simi Valley ........................................................................... 06–111–2002 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Ventura ................................................................................. 06–111–2003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

El Rio ................................................................................... 06–111–3001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Based on the monitoring summarized 

in Table 2, the EPA finds that the 

Ventura County, California area 

continues to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is determining that the Ventura 

County, California area attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard by its attainment 

date, November 15, 2005. 

The data summary presented in Table 

1 demonstrates that there was less than 

one expected exceedance of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in Ventura County 

averaged over the 3 years 2003 to 2005. 

Because the area attained the 1-hour 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date, the area is not subject to the 

requirement to implement contingency 

measures for failure to attain the 

standard by its attainment date. As 

such, even if the area subsequently 

lapses into nonattainment, it would not 

be required to implement the 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain the standard by its attainment 

date. 

Section 185(a) of the CAA states that 

a severe or extreme ozone 

nonattainment area must implement a 

program to impose fees on certain 

stationary sources of air pollution if the 

area ‘‘has failed to attain the national 

primary ambient air quality standard for 

ozone by the applicable attainment 

date.’’ Consequently, if such an area has 

attained the standard as of its applicable 

attainment date, even if it subsequently 

lapses into nonattainment, the area 

would not be required to implement a 

section 185 fee program. Because EPA is 

determining that the Ventura County, 

California area attained the 1-hour 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date, we conclude that the area is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

185 for the 1-hour standard. 

Accordingly, we also determine that the 

State is not required to submit a SIP 

under Section 182(d)(3) of the CAA to 

implement a section 185 program for the 

1-hour standard in this area. 

V. 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 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (59 FR 22951, 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

Reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone. 

Dated: May 14, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 

■ 2. A new § 52.282 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

(a) Attainment determination. EPA 

has determined that the Ventura County 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date of 

November 15, 2005. EPA also has 

determined that the Ventura County 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

is not subject to the requirements of 

section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 1-hour standard and that the 

State is not required to submit a SIP 

under Section 182(d)(3) of the CAA to 

implement a section 185 program for the 

1-hour standard in this area. In addition, 

the requirements of section 172(c)(9) 

(contingency measures) for the 1-hour 

standard do not apply to the area. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E9–12135 Filed 5–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0554; FRL–8413–5] 

Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of etoxazole in or 

on stone fruit; plum; prune; spearmint 

tops and oil; peppermint tops and oil; 

tomato; and cucumber. This regulation 

also deletes the existing cherry 

tolerance, as it will be superseded by 

inclusion in the stone fruit crop group. 

The Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR-4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

27, 2009. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 27, 2009, 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–2008–0554. 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: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; e-mail address: 

nollen.laura@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 Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing electronically 

available documents at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with RULES