Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-02-13 · PROPOSED RULES · AID Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, 8263 E8-2739 Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; One Hundred and Fifty-Th · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

49,422 words·~225 min read·/register/2008/02/13/08-640

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-02-13.xml --- 73 30 Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Contents AID Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, 8263 E8-2739 Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; One Hundred and Fifty-Third Meeting, 8263-8264 E8-2744 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service Alcohol Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8365-8366 E8-2600 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993: Joint Venture ATP Award, 8366 08-610 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Census Designated Place Program for 2010 Census; Final Criteria, 8269-8273 E8-2667 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8319-8320 E8-2585 Meetings: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 8320-8321 E8-2743 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8321 08-630 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA, 8193-8194 E8-2689 E8-2690 PROPOSED RULES Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels) and OPA 90 Limits of Liability (Vessels and Deepwater Ports); Correction, 8250 E8-2685 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8333-8334 E8-2691 Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies, 8334-8335 E8-2680 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8295-8296 E8-2641 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8296 E8-2658 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act;
System of Records, 8296-8297 E8-2755 Renewal of Charter: Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 8297-8298 E8-2756 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8299-8303 08-642 08-643 08-644 08-647 08-648 Meetings: National Assessment Governing Board, 8303-8304 E8-2736 Employment Employment and Training Administration PROPOSED RULES Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States:
Modernizing the Labor Certification Process and Enforcement, 8538-8585 E8-2525 NOTICES Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance: Epic Technologies, LLC, 8367 E8-2621 Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., et al., 8368 E8-2620 Westpoint Home, Inc., et al., 8368 E8-2619 Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, 8368-8370 E8-2618 Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternate Trade Adjustment Assistance, 8370-8371 E8-2617 Negative Determination on Consideration:
Ozzi II, Inc., 8371-8372 E8-2622 Negative Determination on Reconsideration: Chester Bednar Rental Realty, Washington, PA, 8372 E8-2616 Employment Employment Standards Administration See Wage and Hour Division Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, 8304 E8-2629 Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, 8304-8305 E8-2642 Self-Certifications of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act;
Filings, 8305 E8-2638 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES 1,3-Dichloropropene and metabolites; Pesticide Tolerance, 8212-8218 E8-2480 Air Pollutants, Hazardous; National Emission Standards: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources Correction, 8408 Z7-24718 Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Ohio; Clean Air Interstate Rule Correction, 8408 Z8-1804 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Ohio;
Oxides of Nitrogen Budget Trading Program, 8197-8200 E8-2506 State of Colorado; Volatile Organic Compounds from Oil and Gas Operations, 8194-8197 E8-2512 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey: Zero-Emission Vehicle Component of the Low Emission Vehicle Program, 8200-8202 E8-2553 Approval of Petition to Relax Gasoline Volatility Standard: Grant Parish Area, Louisiana, 8202-8209 E8-2702 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for Acid Rain Program, NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and Clean Air Mercury Rule;
Revisions Correction, 8408 Z7-25071 Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Imperial County, 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 8209-8212 E8-2698 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Michigan; PSD Regulations, 8250-8251 E8-2704 Volatile Organic Compounds from Oil and Gas Operations, 8251 E8-2507 Approval of Petition to Relax Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard: Grant Parish Area, Louisiana, 8251-8255 E8-2705 NOTICES Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 8307-8309 E8-2551 Meetings:
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; Draft Policies and Procedures Workshop, 8309 E8-2701 Nanomaterial Research Strategy External Review Draft and Expert Peer Review, 8309-8311 E8-2697 Pesticide Petition for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities; Filing, 8311-8313 E8-2708 E8-2712 Pesticide Products; Registration Applications, 8313-8314 E8-2699 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600 Series Airplanes, 8185-8187 E8-2587 Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes, 8187-8190 E8-2747 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives:
Boeing Model 747 100, et al. Series Airplanes, 8248-8249 E8-2588 Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Series Airplanes, 8247 E8-2742 NOTICES Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property: Monroe Regional Airport, Monroe, Louisiana, 8391 08-619 Meetings: Special Committee 213; Enhanced Flight Vision System/Synthetic Vision System, 8391 08-618 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Report on Broadcast Localism, 8255-8259 E8-2664 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8315 E8-2663 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Natural Gas Pipelines; Project Cost and Annual Limits, 8190-8191 E8-2531 NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 8305-8307 E8-2609 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: East and West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, and Livingston Parishes, LA, 8391-8392 08-629 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 8315 E8-2675 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants, 8316 E8-2657 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations, 8316-8317 E8-2669 E8-2670 E8-2674 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers;
Exemption Applications; Vision, 8392-8394 E8-2605 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision, 8394 E8-2604 Federal Procurement Federal Procurement Policy Office PROPOSED RULES Cost Accounting Standards Board; Allocation of Home Office Expenses to Segments, 8260-8262 E8-2666 Cost Accounting Standards Board Exemptions: Contracts Executed and Performed Outside the United States, Its Territories, and Possessions, 8259-8260 E8-2668 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration RULES Railroad Operating Rules and Practices:
Program of Operational Tests and Inspections; Handling Equipment, Switches and Fixed Derails, 8442-8505 E8-1933 NOTICES New Quiet Zone Review; Little Falls, MN, 8394-8395 E8-2688 Petition for Waiver of Compliance, 8395-8397 E8-2660 E8-2686 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 8317 E8-2615 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8317 08-698 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Designation of Critical Habitat— Nevin's barberry, 8412-8440 08-523 NOTICES Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment; Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, 8343-8344 E8-2628 Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications, 8344-8345 E8-2586 Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis Californiana), 8345-8346 E8-2627 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor: Ketamine, 8191-8192 E8-2607 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;
Phenylbutazone Tablets, 8192 E8-2608 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Forest Service Special Use Permits; Directives and Insurance Requirements: Extension of Public Comment Period, 8264 E8-2656 Meetings: National Tree-marking Paint Committee, 8264-8265 E8-2655 Native Plant Material Policy; Forest Service Manual 2070, 8265-8269 E8-2659 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Advisory Committee on Water Information; Renewal of Charter, 8346 08-612 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Water Information, 8346-8347 08-613 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See Indian Health Service See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:
American Health Information Community; Chronic Care Workgroup, 8318 08-622 American Health Information Community; Confidentiality, Privacy, and Security Workgroup, 8318 08-620 American Health Information Community; Consumer Empowerment Workgroup, 8319 08-625 American Health Information Community; Personalized Healthcare Workgroup, 8319 08-624 American Health Information Community; Population Health and Clinical Care Connections Workgroup, 8318 08-621 American Health Information Community;
Quality Workgroup, 8318 08-623 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 8322 E8-2737 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants, 8230-8247 E8-2532 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8341-8342 E8-2677 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Demonstration Project for Healthy Lifestyles in Youth, 8322-8326 08-626 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Geological Survey See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service See Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Privacy Act of 1974;
Amendments to Existing Systems of Records, 8342-8343 E8-2584 IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Guidance Necessary to Facilitate Electronic Tax Administration: Update of Section 7216 Regulations; Correction, 8193 E8-2597 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8403-8407 E8-2590 E8-2591 E8-2592 E8-2593 E8-2594 E8-2595 E8-2596 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 8273-8287 E8-2648 Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 8287-8290 E8-2646 Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain, 8290-8291 E8-2645 Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China; Correction, 8291 E8-2647 Justice Justice Department See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau See Antitrust Division See Justice Programs Office NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree Under The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reducion Act, 8364-8365 E8-2579 Lodging of First Modification to Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, 8365 E8-2639 Justice Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8366-8367 E8-2599 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration See Wage and Hour Division Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Utah's Recreation Resource Advisory Committee, 8347 E8-2546 Legal Legal Services Corporation RULES Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance; Correction, 8218-8219 E8-2427 Management Management and Budget Office See Federal Procurement Policy Office Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws;
Request, 8397 E8-2643 Assistance to Small Shipyards Grant Program, 8397-8398 E8-2661 Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws, 8398 E8-2738 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Outer Continental Shelf Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale, 8347-8353 E8-2684 Outer Continental Shelf Eastern Gulf of Mexico: Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 224, 8353-8355 E8-2676 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Event Data Recorders Correction, 8408-8409 Z8-407 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8398-8400 E8-2694 08-609 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8326-8327 E8-2606 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 8327-8329 08-603 08-636 08-637 National Cancer Institute, 8329 08-632 National Center for Research Resources, 8329-8330 08-601 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 8330 08-604 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 8331 08-639 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 8331 08-633 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 8331 08-638 National Institute of Mental Health, 8330 08-600 National Institute on Aging, 8330 08-602 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 8330-8331 08-631 National Library of Medicine, 8332 08-635 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 8332 08-634 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Shrimp Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico: Revisions to Bycatch Reduction Devices and Testing Protocols, 8219-8228 E8-2679 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Catcher Processors Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 8228-8229 08-640 Pacific Cod by Non-American Fisheries Act Crab Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for Processing by the Inshore Component in the Central Regulatory Area, 8229 08-652 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8292-8293 E8-2582 E8-2583 Marine Mammals Permits, 8293-8294 E8-2603 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 8294 E8-2652 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 8294 E8-2651 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 8294-8295 E8-2650 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Saint Louis Science Center, Saint Louis, MO, 8355-8356 E8-2602 Inventory Completion: Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 8356-8357 E8-2572 Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, 8357-8358 E8-2576 Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI, 8358-8359 E8-2601 University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO, 8359-8360 E8-2575 Meetings:
Big Cypress National Preserve Off-road Vehicle Advisory Committee, 8360 08-627 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, 8360-8361 E8-2571 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Nomination Solicitation, 8361-8362 E8-2573 Protecting and Restoring Native Ecosystems by Managing Non-native Ungulates: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii, 8362-8363 08-628 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act; System of Records, 8298-8299 E8-2754 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Revision of Fee Schedules;
Fee Recovery for FY 2008, 8508-8535 E8-2412 NOTICES Security Measures and Fingerprinting for Unescorted Access to Certain Spent Fuel Storage Licensees; Additional Implementation, 8375-8380 E8-2714 Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License: FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 8380-8381 E8-2711 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health:
Nominations for Employer, Employee and Public Representatives, 8372-8374 E8-2625 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8374-8375 E8-2624 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8400-8402 E8-2662 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Change of Use: Mark Twain Recreation Area Lake Access, New Melones Lake, Tuolumne County, CA, 8363-8364 08-650 Waterway Between Smittle Creek Day Use Area, Oak Shores Day Use Area, and Big Island Lake Berryessa, Napa, CA, 8364 08-649 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 8381-8382 E8-2614 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 8382-8384 E8-2612 E8-2613 Depository Trust Company, 8384-8386 E8-2577 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 8387 E8-2610 NYSE Arca, Inc., 8387-8389 E8-2611 State State Department NOTICES Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 8389-8390 E8-2654 Overseas Security Advisory Council, 8390 E8-2653 Shipping Coordinating Committee, 8390 E8-2649 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8332-8333 E8-2740 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Use of a Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the Railroad Industry's Cost of Capital, 8402-8403 E8-2707 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8390-8391 08-676 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Customs U.S.
Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Accreditation and Approval as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory: SGS North America, Inc., 8335 E8-2632 Issuance of Final Determination: Multifunctional Machines, 8335-8339 E8-2636 Standard and Rolled-Edge Ball Seals; Issuance of Final Determination, 8339-8341 E8-2631 Wage Wage and Hour Division PROPOSED RULES Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States: Modernizing the Labor Certification Process and Enforcement, 8538-8585 E8-2525 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 8412-8440 08-523 Part III Transportation Department, Federal Railroad Administration, 8442-8505 E8-1933 Part IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 8508-8535 E8-2412 Part V Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration;
Labor Department, Wage and Hour Division, 8538-8585 E8-2525 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 30 Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No.
FAA-2007-29336; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-143-AD; Amendment 39-15373; AD 2008-04-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of the passenger door related to excessive residual pressure in the cabin. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55124). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The present AD requires the flight crew to follow the instructions of the “emergency procedure check of delta P = 0” of the Aircraft Flight Manual
(AFM)at the latest revision date. This AD falls within the scope of a set of corrective measures developed by AIRBUS subsequent to accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of the passenger door related to excessive residual pressure in the cabin. * * * The corrective action is revising the Emergency Procedures sections of the AFMs to advise the flightcrew of new procedures for emergency evacuation. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 238 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $19,040, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-04-01 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15373. Docket No. FAA-2007-29336; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-143-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective March 19, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300, A310, and A300-600 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models and all serial numbers. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 21: Air conditioning. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: The present AD requires the flight crew to follow the instructions of the “emergency procedure check of delta P = 0” of the Aircraft Flight Manual
(AFM)at the latest revision date. This AD falls within the scope of a set of corrective measures developed by AIRBUS subsequent to accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of the passenger door related to excessive residual pressure in the cabin. * * * The corrective action is revising the Emergency Procedures sections of the AFMs to advise the flightcrew of new procedures for emergency evacuation. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For Model A300 series airplanes without modification 10002 installed, revise the Emergency Procedures sections of the AFM to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “EMERGENCY EVACUATION AIRCRAFT/PARKING BRAKE Stop/Set. ATC (VHF 1) Notify. Cabin crew Notify. EMER EXIT LT ON. BOTH FUEL LEVERS OFF. FIRE handles (ENG and APU) Pull. AGENTS (ENG and APU) as rqrd. RAM AIR INLET Open. Before opening doors: ΔP (DIFF PRESS) Check zero. • If evacuation required: Evacuation Initiate. • If evacuation not required: CABIN CREW and PASSENGERS Notify”.
(2)For Model A300 series airplanes on which modification 10002 is installed, revise the Emergency Procedures sections of the AFM to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “EMERGENCY EVACUATION (Mod 10002) AIRCRAFT/PARKING BRAKE Stop/Set. ATC (VHF 1) Notify. Cabin crew Notify. EMER EXIT LT ON. CL LT ON. BOTH FUEL LEVERS OFF. FIRE handles (ENG and APU) Pull. AGENTS (ENG and APU) as rqrd. RAM AIR INLET Open. Before opening doors: ΔP (DIFF PRESS) Check zero. • If evacuation required: Evacuation Initiate. • If evacuation not required: CABIN CREW and PASSENGERS Notify”.
(3)For Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes, revise the Emergency Procedures sections of the AFM to include the following information. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Before opening doors: • IF DEPRESS VALVE selected in MAN mode: —DEPRESS VALVE MAN CLT Full Open. —ΔP (Diff press) Check zero. • If evacuation required: —Evacuation Initiate. —BAT (before leaving A/C) OFF/R. • If evacuation not required: —CABIN CREW and PASSENGERS Notify”. Note 1: When the information described in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the applicable AFM, and the copy of the AD may be removed from that AFM. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0093 R1, dated April 17, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)None. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 4, 2008. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-2587 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-029-AD; Amendment 39-15374; AD 2008-04-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD requires inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts have a certain marking, inspecting affected bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly, and replacing all hardware if the pre-load is incorrect. For airplanes on which the pre-load is correct, this AD requires doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles and replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel nuts. This AD also requires replacement of all hardware for certain affected barrel nuts that do not have cracking, which would end the repetitive inspections for those airplanes. This AD also provides an optional replacement for all affected barrel nuts. This AD results from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 13, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 13, 2008. We must receive comments on this AD by March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7324; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. TCCA advises that during scheduled maintenance, an operator found cracks in the barrel nut at one of the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. Investigation determined that the cracks were due to hydrogen embrittlement and that the problem is likely restricted to a batch of 166 barrel nuts from one supplier. In addition, another operator has reported finding cracked barrel nuts at three of the four wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints on one aircraft. All three barrel nuts were from the suspect batch. Cracking of the barrel nuts, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. The service bulletin describes the following procedures: • Determining whether the inboard and outboard bolts are correctly pre-loaded. • Replacing all hardware at locations where the pre-load is incorrect. • Doing a visual inspection of the barrel nut and cradle for cracking. • Replacing cracked barrel nuts with all new hardware. • Doing an inspection for certain markings of the barrel nuts. • Replacing barrel nuts having the affected markings. TCCA mandated the service bulletin and issued Canadian emergency airworthiness directive CF-2008-11, dated February 5, 2008, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. This AD requires the following actions: • Inspecting all barrel nuts to determine if the barrel nuts have a marking of LH7940T SPS 01 (all barrel nuts with this marking will also have a yellow dot identifier). • Inspecting (repetitively) affected bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly. • Replacing all hardware if the pre-load is incorrect. • Doing repetitive visual inspections for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles for airplanes on which the pre-load is correct. • Replacing all hardware for all cracked barrel nuts. • Replacing all hardware for certain affected barrel nuts that do not have cracking, which would end the repetitive inspections for those airplanes. This AD also provides an optional replacement for all affected barrel nuts. Differences Between the AD and Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive The Canadian emergency airworthiness directive recommends accomplishing the inspection of the barrel nuts within 100 flight hours. We have determined, however, that the inspection must be done within 50 flight hours to adequately address the unsafe condition. In developing an appropriate compliance time for all airplanes that are affected by this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the required inspections. We have coordinated this difference with TCCA. We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the replacement of all hardware for all barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, as required by the Canadian emergency airworthiness directive. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification. In order to ensure continued operational safety in the interim, this AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the suspect barrel nuts every 100 flight hours until the replacement is done. FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date Cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the critical need to assure the structural integrity of the front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and the short compliance time involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately. Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-029-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2008-04-02 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39-15374. Docket No. FAA-2008-0167; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-029-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective February 13, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4176 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking in the barrel nuts at the four primary front spar wing-to-fuselage attachment joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the barrel nuts at the wing front spar wing-to-fuselage joints, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachments and consequent detachment of the wing. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect all barrel nuts, part number DSC228-16, to determine if the barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(1)If no barrel nuts are identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, no further actions are required by this paragraph.
(2)If any barrel nut is found that is identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, before further flight, inspect the inboard and outboard bolts to determine if the bolts are pre-loaded correctly. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(i)If the pre-load is incorrect (i.e., the ring can be rotated), before further flight, replace all hardware at that location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(ii)If the preload is correct, before further flight, do a visual inspection for cracking of the barrel nuts and cradles in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(A)If no cracking of the barrel nut and cradle is found, do the applicable action required by paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(B)If no cracking of the barrel nut is found and only cracking of the cradle is found, no action is required by this paragraph provided that the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD is done.
(C)If any cracking of the barrel nut is found, before next flight, replace all hardware only at that location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(g)For any barrel nuts on which no cracking of the barrel nut was found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, do the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD at the compliance time specified in the applicable paragraph.
(1)If four barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware at the left-hand outboard location and the right-hand outboard location in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nuts on the outboard locations terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(2)If three barrel nuts having no cracking are found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one affected barrel nut at the outboard location, on the side with two affected barrel nuts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the outboard location terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nuts identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(3)If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and both nuts are on the same side, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(3)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD is done.
(ii)Within 500 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, replace all hardware for one affected barrel nut at the outboard location that has two affected barrel nuts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Replacing the barrel nut on the outboard location terminates the requirement to do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD.
(iii)Within 100 flight hours after doing the replacement required by paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for the remaining barrel nut identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at that location is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(4)If two barrel nuts having no cracking are found and are on opposite sides, within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at those locations is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008.
(5)If one barrel nut having no cracking is found, within 100 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours until the replacement of all hardware at that location is done. Do the inspection and replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Optional Replacement
(h)Replacement of all hardware for all barrel nuts, part number DSC228-16, identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, constitutes terminating action for this AD. Replacement must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Alert Service Bulletin
(i)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, dated February 1, 2008, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Actions Accomplished According to Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-18
(j)For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-18, dated January 16, 2008, were accomplished before the effective date of this AD and on which no barrel nuts were found that were identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01: No further action is required by this AD. Parts Installation
(k)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a barrel nut, part number DSC228-16, identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01, on any airplane. Special Flight Permit
(l)Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished but concurrence by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is required prior to issuance of the special flight permit. Before using any approved special flight permits, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Special flight permits may be permitted provided that the conditions specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(5) of this AD are met.
(1)Both the right-hand side and left-hand side of the airplane must have at least one barrel nut that is not within the suspect batch (i.e., barrel nut is not identified with a marking of LH7940T SPS 01). The barrel nuts that are not within the suspect batch must be in good working condition (i.e., no cracking of the barrel nut).
(2)No passengers and no cargo are onboard.
(3)Airplane must operate in fair weather conditions with a low risk of turbulence.
(4)Airplane must operate with reduced airspeed. For further information, contact Bombardier, Q Series 24 Hour Service Customer Response Center, at: Tel: 1-416-375-4000; Fax: 1-416-375-4539; E-mail: *thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com* .
(5)All of the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), and (l)(4) of this AD are on a case-by-case basis. Contact your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO, for assistance. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(n)Canadian emergency airworthiness directive CF-2008-11, dated February 5, 2008. Material Incorporated by Reference
(o)You must use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, Revision A, dated February 6, 2008, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 2008. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-2747 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 157 [Docket No. RM81-19-000] Natural Gas Pipelines; Project Cost and Annual Limits February 5, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 CFR 375.308(x)(1), the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
(OEP)computes and publishes the project cost and annual limits for natural gas pipelines blanket construction certificates for each calendar year. DATES: This final rule is effective February 13, 2008 and establishes cost limits applicable from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. McGehee, Chief, Certificates Branch 1, Division of Pipeline Certificates,
(202)502-8962. Publication of Project Cost Limits Under Blanket Certificates Order of the Director, OEP February 5, 2008 Section 157.208(d) of the Commission's Regulations provides for project cost limits applicable to construction, acquisition, operation and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities (Table I) authorized under the blanket certificate procedure (Order No. 234, 19 FERC ¶ 61,216). Section 157.215(a) specifies the calendar year dollar limit which may be expended on underground storage testing and development (Table II) authorized under the blanket certificate. Section 157.208(d) requires that the “limits specified in Tables I and II shall be adjusted each calendar year to reflect the `GDP implicit price deflator' published by the Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year.” Pursuant to § 375.308(x)(1) of the Commission's Regulations, the authority for the publication of such cost limits, as adjusted for inflation, is delegated to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects. The cost limits for calendar year 2008, as published in Table I of § 157.208(d) and Table II of § 157.215(a), are hereby issued. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157 Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. J. Mark Robinson, Director, Office of Energy Projects. Accordingly, 18 CFR part 157 is amended as follows: PART 157—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w. 2. Table I in § 157.208(d) is revised to read as follows: § 157.208 Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.
(d)* * * Table I Year Limit Auto. proj. cost Prior notice 1982 $4,200,000 $12,000,000 1983 4,500,000 12,800,000 1984 4,700,000 13,300,000 1985 4,900,000 13,800,000 1986 5,100,000 14,300,000 1987 5,200,000 14,700,000 1988 5,400,000 15,100,000 1989 5,600,000 15,600,000 1990 5,800,000 16,000,000 1991 6,000,000 16,700,000 1992 6,200,000 17,300,000 1993 6,400,000 17,700,000 1994 6,600,000 18,100,000 1995 6,700,000 18,400,000 1996 6,900,000 18,800,000 1997 7,000,000 19,200,000 1998 7,100,000 19,600,000 1999 7,200,000 19,800,000 2000 7,300,000 20,200,000 2001 7,400,000 20,600,000 2002 7,500,000 21,000,000 2003 7,600,000 21,200,000 2004 7,800,000 21,600,000 2005 8,000,000 22,000,000 2006 9,600,000 27,400,000 2007 9,900,000 28,200,000 2008 10,200,000 29,000,000 3. Table II in § 157.215(a) is revised to read as follows: § 157.215 Underground storage testing and development.
(a)* * *
(5)* * * Table II Year Limit 1982 $2,700,000 1983 2,900,000 1984 3,000,000 1985 3,100,000 1986 3,200,000 1987 3,300,000 1988 3,400,000 1989 3,500,000 1990 3,600,000 1991 3,800,000 1992 3,900,000 1993 4,000,000 1994 4,100,000 1995 4,200,000 1996 4,300,000 1997 4,400,000 1998 4,500,000 1999 4,550,000 2000 4,650,000 2001 4,750,000 2002 4,850,000 2003 4,900,000 2004 5,000,000 2005 5,100,000 2006 5,250,000 2007 5,400,000 2008 5,550,000 [FR Doc. E8-2531 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510 and 522 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor; Ketamine AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) for ketamine hydrochloride injectable solution from Veterinary Research Associates, Inc., to Putney, Inc. DATES: This rule is effective February 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8307, e-mail: *david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Veterinary Research Associates, Inc., 2817 West Country Rd., 54G, Fort Collins, CO 80524, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200-073 for Ketamine Hydrochloride Injection, USP, to Putney, Inc., 400 Congress St., suite 200, Portland, ME 04101. Accordingly, the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1222a to reflect this change of sponsorship. Following these changes of sponsorship, Veterinary Research Associates, Inc., is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. In addition, Putney, Inc., is not currently listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove the entries for Veterinary Research Associates, Inc., and to add entries for Putney, Inc. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1) remove the entry for “Veterinary Research Associates, Inc.” and alphabetically add a new entry for “Putney, Inc.”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) remove the entry for “064408” and numerically add an entry for “026637” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * Putney, Inc., 400 Congress St., suite 200, Portland, ME 04101 026637 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 026637 Putney, Inc., 400 Congress St., suite 200, Portland, ME 04101 * * * * * PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 522.1222a [Amended] 4. In § 522.1222a, revise paragraph
(b)by removing “064408” and numerically adding “026637”. Dated: January 31, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-2607 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone Tablets AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of two supplemental new animal drug applications (NADAs) filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The supplemental NADAs provide revised labeling for phenylbutazone tablets used in horses and dogs. DATES: This rule is effective February 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8337, e-mail: *melanie.berson@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed supplements to NADA 91-818 and NADA 94-170 for Phenylbutazone Tablets. The supplemental applications provide for revisions to warning statements on product labeling. The supplemental NADAs are approved as of January 17, 2008, and 21 CFR 520.1720a is amended to reflect the approval. Approval of these supplemental NADAs did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that these actions are of a type that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is amended as follows: PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 520.1720a to read as follows: § 520.1720a Phenylbutazone tablets and boluses.
(a)*Specifications* . Each tablet contains 100, 200, or 400 milligrams (mg), or 1 gram
(g)phenylbutazone. Each bolus contains 2 or 4 g phenylbutazone.
(b)*Sponsors* . See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter, as follows:
(1)No. 000061 for use of 100- or 400-mg or 1-g tablets, or 2- or 4-g boluses, in dogs and horses.
(2)Nos. 000010 and 059130 for use of 100- or 200-mg or 1-g tablets in dogs and horses.
(3)Nos. 000856, 058829, and 061623 for use of 100-mg or 1-g tablets in dogs and horses.
(4)No. 055246 for use of 100-mg tablets in dogs.
(5)No. 000143 for use of 1-g tablets in horses.
(c)*Conditions of use* —(1) *Dogs* —(i) *Amount* . 20 mg per pound of body weight daily.
(ii)*Indications for use* . For the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculoskeletal system.
(iii)*Limitations* . Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
(2)*Horses* —(i) *Amount* . 1 to 2 g per 500 pounds of body weight daily.
(ii)*Indications for use* . For the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculoskeletal system.
(iii)*Limitations* . Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law prohibits the use of this drug in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Dated: January 31, 2008. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E8-2608 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD 9375] RIN 1545-BA96 Guidance Necessary To Facilitate Electronic Tax Administration—Updating of Section 7216 Regulations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9375) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1058) regarding the disclosure and use of their tax return information by tax return preparers. DATES: The correction is effective February 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Mack,
(202)622-4940 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations (TD 9375) that are the subject of the correction are under Section 7216 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9375) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9375), which were the subject of FR Doc. 08-1, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 1058, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Background”, seventh line of the fifth paragraph of the column, the language “2005-52 I.R.B. 1204 (December 07,” is corrected to read “2005-52 I.R.B. 1204 (December 7,”. 2. On page 1062, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “D. Disclosures to Other Tax Return Preparers”, thirteenth line of the column, the language “Service provider. The commentator's” is corrected to read “service provider. The commentator's”. 3. On page 1066, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “H. Multiple Disclosures or Multiple Uses Within a Single Consent Form”, fifteenth line of the second paragraph, the language “Section 301-7216-3(c)(1) of the final” is corrected to read “Section 301.7216-3(c)(1) of the final”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-2597 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0063 Formerly CGD11-08-003] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the public to cross the bridge to participate in the scheduled Shamrock Half Marathon Footrace, a community event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the race. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. on March 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(510)437-3516. The Eleventh Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone
(510)437-3516. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over the Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational. The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 7:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. on March 16, 2008 to allow participants in the Shamrock Half Marathon Footrace to cross the bridge during the event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period. No objections to the temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 30 minutes advance notice. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 29, 2008. C.E. Bone, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-2690 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0062 Formerly CGD11-08-002] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the public to cross the bridge to participate in the scheduled Tour of California Bicycle Race, a community event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the race. DATES: This deviation is effective from 1:45 p.m. through 2:45 p.m. on February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(510)437-3516. The Eleventh Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone
(510)437-3516. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over the Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational. The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 1:45 p.m. through 2:45 p.m. on February 19, 2008 to allow participants in the Tour of California Bicycle Race to cross the bridge during the event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period. No objections to the temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 30 minutes advance notice. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: January 29, 2008. C.E. Bone, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-2689 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1002; FRL-8521-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Regulation No. 7, Section XII, Volatile Organic Compounds From Oil and Gas Operations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On August 3, 2007, the Governor's designee submitted revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7, “Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds,” Section XII, “Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)From Oil and Gas Operations.” EPA is approving the revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII. This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on April 14, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 14, 2008. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1002, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* 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., CBI 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 Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information II. What is the purpose of this action? III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 7, Section XII, Revisions V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA, we, us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *NAAQS* mean National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v)The word *State* means the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise. I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: I. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). II. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. III. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. IV. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. V. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. VI. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. VII. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. VIII. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What is the purpose of this action? In this action, we are approving revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, for the control of VOC emissions from oil and gas operations. James B. Martin, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, submitted these revisions to us on August 3, 2007. We previously approved Regulation No. 7, Section XII, on August 19, 2005 (see 70 FR 48652) as part of Denver's Early Action Compact
(EAC)SIP for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of the EAC SIP is to prevent exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Denver EAC area. 1 Due to unanticipated growth of condensate tank emissions in the oil and gas sector, the State determined that the version of Regulation No. 7, Section XII, that we approved in 2005 needed to be revised. The version of Regulation No. 7, Section XII, submitted August 3, 2007 requires a greater level of control of condensate tank emissions in the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area. 1 In April 2004, EPA designated the Denver area (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and parts of Larimer and Weld counties) as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, but deferred the effective date of the designation based on a commitment from the State of Colorado, the Regional Air Quality Council and others to implement ozone control measures sooner than required by the Clean Air Act. This commitment was contained in the Denver Early Action Compact (EAC). The non-attainment designation for the area became effective November 20, 2007, as a result of a violation for 2005-2007, which triggers requirements for future revisions to the attainment demonstration SIP for the Denver EAC area. III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA? Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of SIP revisions. The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted by a State after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur before a State submits the revision to us. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
(AQCC)held public hearings for the revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, on November 17, 2006, November 18, 2006, and December 17, 2006. The AQCC adopted the revisions on January 5, 2007. The revisions became State effective on March 4, 2007. We have evaluated the revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 7, Section XII, Revisions Colorado's Regulation No. 7, Section XII, “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Oil And Gas Operations,” imposes emission control requirements on oil and gas condensate tanks located in the Denver EAC area, with the majority of affected facilities being located in southern Weld County. Among other things, Regulation No. 7, Section XII, includes definitions; required emission reductions for the high ozone season and rest of the year; numerous recordkeeping requirements for a spreadsheet to determine weekly and other periodic compliance; emission factors used to demonstrate compliance; reporting requirements for certain equipment if a construction or Title V permit is issued by the State; a methodology for approval of alternative emissions control equipment; requirements for gas-processing plants; requirements for controlling emissions from dehydration units; and a methodology for approval to develop testing methods and revised emission factors. The condensate tank requirements, along with other requirements applicable to oil and gas operations and natural gas fired reciprocating internal combustion engines, were initially promulgated in March 2004, and later revised in December 2004. Colorado submitted these requirements to us as a SIP revision, which we approved on August 19, 2005 (see 70 FR 48652). Colorado designed the emission limits in the 2004 revision of Regulation No. 7, Section XII, to achieve total condensate tank VOC emissions in the Denver EAC area during the summer ozone season of no more than 91.3 tons per day
(tpd)as of May 1, 2007, and 100.9 tpd as of May 1, 2012. These daily values were relied on to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the modeling analysis, as part of the EAC SIP. However, because of unanticipated growth of condensate tank emissions, the State later determined that the emission limits in the 2004 version of Regulation No. 7 would be insufficient to meet these daily emission numbers. The 2007 revisions require a greater level of control of condensate tank emissions within the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area boundary. The State's goal remains to achieve the same daily emission targets for condensate tank VOC emissions. We note that the VOC emission reductions that are required by Regulation No. 7, Section XII, are achieved not by specific requirements on each condensate tank, but instead by overall or system-wide emission reductions for each affected company's operations. As stated in Regulation No. 7, Section XII, the requirement to control emissions applies to owners or operators of condensate tanks with a cumulative total of 30 tons per year or more of VOC emissions. In practice, industry has controlled the condensate tank VOC emissions with flares or vapor recovery units, and Regulation No. 7, Section XII, requires these types of emission control devices to achieve 95% control efficiency. Revised Regulation No. 7, Section XII, raises the system-wide control requirements for the ozone season from the 47.5% VOC reduction requirement that applied from May 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006, to 75% from May 1 through September 30 of each year from 2007 through 2011. For the period from May 1 through September 30 of each year, beginning with 2012, VOC emissions from condensate tanks must be reduced by 78% from uncontrolled actual emissions. Determination of compliance during the ozone season will be on a weekly basis. For the non-ozone season, the State revised the required reduction of condensate tank VOC emissions from 38% to 60% in 2007, and beginning in 2008, and each year thereafter, VOC emissions between October 1 and April 30 must be reduced by 70% from uncontrolled actual emissions. Emission reductions during the non-ozone season must be calculated as an average of the emission reductions achieved during this seven-month period. In addition to the changes to the system-wide reduction requirements, the State adopted significant changes to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Owners or operators of any condensate storage tank that is being controlled under Regulation No. 7, Section XII, must inspect or monitor the control equipment at least weekly. Types of equipment include combustion devices, vapor recovery units, valves, and thief hatches. As noted above, the record-keeping provisions require owners or operators to maintain a spreadsheet to track emission reductions on a weekly basis during the ozone season (May 1 through September 30). In addition to the spreadsheet, owners or operators are required to maintain records of monitoring and inspection activities. The reporting provisions require owners or operators to submit an annual report by April 30 of each year, and also a semi-annual report by November 30 of each year, detailing emission reductions during the preceding year and ozone season, respectively. Finally, provisions have been added to require owners or operators subject to the condensate storage tank reduction requirements to submit a list of all their controlled tanks on April 30 of each year; to notify the State monthly during the ozone season of any change to the list of controlled tanks; and to notify the State monthly of any instance where the air pollution control equipment was not properly functioning and the steps taken to correct the problem. We have reviewed and are approving the revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, “Volatile Organic Compounds From Oil and Gas Operations” because they require greater reductions in emissions and meet the requirements of section 110 of the CAA. V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. VI. Final Action In this action, EPA is approving the revisions to Regulation No. 7, Section XII, that were submitted on August 3, 2007. The version of Section XII we are approving supersedes and replaces the prior version we approved at 70 FR 48652 (August 19, 2005). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 14, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by March 14, 2008. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). 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 rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . 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 *April 14, 2008.* Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 15, 2008. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 G—Colorado 2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(112) to read as follows: § 52.320 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(112)On August 3, 2007, the Governor of Colorado submitted revisions to the Colorado's Regulation No. 7 “Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds” that made several changes and additions to Section XII, “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Oil and Gas Operations.”
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Regulation No. 7 “Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds,” 5 CCR 1001-9, Section XII, “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Oil and Gas Operations,” effective on March 4, 2007. [FR Doc. E8-2512 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976; FRL-8526-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Oxides of Nitrogen Budget Trading Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is granting final approval to Ohio's request for the retirement and withdrawal of 240 oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) allowances from the State's 2005 new source set aside. Retiring 240 new source set aside allowances will provide surplus emission reductions to help compensate for the discontinuation of Ohio's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (known as “E-Check”) in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas for the year 2006. (Ohio is in the process of seeking approval of the removal of E-Check as an active program from the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which will be addressed in a separate action.) EPA received adverse comments and one positive comment on our proposed rulemaking on the allowance retirement. These comments are addressed in this notice. As a result of this action, 240 NO <sup>X</sup> allowances from the State's 2005 new source set aside will be withheld and permanently retired. DATES: This final rule is effective on March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the 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 Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, at
(312)353-8777 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-8777, *maietta.anthony@epa.gov* . 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 did EPA propose? II. What is EPA's response to comments? III. What action is EPA taking today? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What did EPA propose? On October 6, 2006, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)Chapters 3745-72-01 and 3745-14-05. These rules provide a revised start date for the use of low-volatility gasoline and provide the necessary quantity of interim, surplus NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions through the permanent retirement of new source set aside allowances from the State's NO <sup>X</sup> budget trading program. Revisions to OAC 3745-72-01 were addressed in a separate rulemaking published on May 25, 2007, at 72 FR 29269. On September 13, 2007 (at 72 FR 52320), EPA proposed to approve the revisions to OAC 3745-14-05. The revision to OAC 3745-14-05 permanently withholds and retires 240 NO <sup>X</sup> allowances from Ohio's 2005 new source set aside. By retiring these new source set aside allowances, Ohio guarantees that these allowances will not be reallocated to participating Ohio NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call utilities and boilers the following year. This action allows EPA to consider the corresponding reduction of 240 tons of emissions of NO <sup>X</sup> to be surplus. These 240 tons of surplus NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions, corresponding to reductions resulting from emission control devices installed on electrical generation units in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas before 2006, can be considered to provide 240 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emission reduction in compensation for the equivalent emission increase resulting from discontinuation of the E-Check program in those areas in 2006. II. What is EPA's response to comments? EPA received both supportive and adverse comments in response to our proposed rulemaking on OAC 3745-14-05. EPA received comments from the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) in support of our proposed action on October 18, 2007. Adverse comments were sent dated January 12, February 15, March 13, and October 15, 2007, from Shumaker, Loop, and Kendrick, LLP, a law firm representing the Ohio Electric Utility Institute as well as various utilities in the State (hereafter described as “the Utilities”). Despite some comments being sent even before EPA had published the proposed rulemaking, we are treating the early comments as pertaining to today's action, and we address them in this action. *Comment:* The Utilities believe that withholding and permanently retiring 240 NO <sup>X</sup> allowances has not and will not create emissions reductions in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas, specifically because:
(a)NO <sup>X</sup> allowances are not emissions reductions;
(b)If an Ohio source wanted to emit more, it could purchase allowances from outside the state, or it could transfer allowances from a facility it owns in another state;
(c)If no Ohio sources needed the withheld allowances for the purposes of compliance, then withholding and retiring the 240 allowances will not result in decreased emissions in the Ohio or Cincinnati/Dayton areas; and,
(d)No evidence exists to support that withholding these allowances resulted in reductions in the Cincinnati/Dayton areas. *Response:* Under the cap and trade program known as the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, EPA issues a finite number of allowances and allows each subject source an amount of emissions based on the quantity of allowances the source holds. The quantity of allowances thus corresponds to the total emissions allowed across the area covered by the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call. Consequently, by retiring 240 allowances, Ohio has unquestionably reduced the total allowable emissions across the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call area by 240 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emissions. Ohio may use utility NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions to compensate for discontinuing E-Check only if the reductions are surplus relative to existing requirements, and the retirement of 240 allowances provides 240 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions that are surplus to the reductions mandated by the existing NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call. EPA further believes that Ohio can reasonably claim that the 240 tons of surplus NO <sup>X</sup> emission reduction that they have mandated compensates for 240 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emission increase (or the equivalent quantity of increase in volatile organic compound emissions) resulting from discontinuation of E-Check. As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking, “substantial emission reductions have occurred in the Cincinnati/Dayton area,” and “EPA believes that Ohio has latitude to attribute 240 tons of the 2006 NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions in the Cincinnati/Dayton area to its retirement of 240 allowances.” The comments do not directly address the rationale for these views that EPA provided in its notice of proposed rulemaking. The following responds more directly to the submitted comments:
(a)Retirement of NO <sup>X</sup> allowances does mandate a net emission reduction.
(b)Purchasing or transferring allowances from another location reduces allowable emissions at that other location, retaining the net emission reduction.
(c)EPA is concluding that 240 tons of the emission reductions that are known to have occurred in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas can be attributed to Ohio's retirement of 240 allowances. Ohio sources will not need these allowances precisely because they have implemented emission reductions mandated by the limited availability of allowances.
(d)Ohio provided for 240 tons of emission reduction, and Ohio can reasonably attribute this reduction to a small fraction of the over 10,000 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> reductions that have occurred in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. 1 The commenter seeks evidence of a causal link between the allowance retirement and specific emission reductions, which would presumably require that Ohio or EPA examine the motivations underlying utility control decisions. EPA believes that such a survey is unnecessary, and believes that Ohio has adequate basis for associating the surplus reductions created by the rule revision with 240 tons of reductions that have occurred in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. 1 In a letter dated February 23, 2007, Ohio supplemented its submittal with information regarding NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions that have occurred in the Cincinnati/Dayton area. This letter identifies several actions that substantially reduced NO <sup>X</sup> emissions starting from before the 2006 ozone season, which include installation of selective catalytic reduction controls at 3 units and installation of low NO <sup>X</sup> burners at 9 other units. Ohio estimates that the total emission reduction from these actions is over 10,000 tons per ozone season. *Comment:* The Utilities commented that Ohio's October 6, 2006, submittal should be considered `incomplete' because it does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.2, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). For each section, the Utilities comment that statements by Ohio EPA personnel (provided in an appendix to the comments) support their view. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V section 2.2(c) requires “Quantification of the changes to the plan of allowable emissions from the affected sources, estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources, or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.” The Utilities comment that Ohio only submitted the number of NO <sup>X</sup> allowances it plans to retire (240). Further, the Utilities state that Ohio's submittal does not quantify the “allowable emissions” from the Utilities under OAC 5745-14-05(C)(7) because the retired allowances do not limit utilities' allowable emissions. The Utilities in fact believe that it is impossible for Ohio to calculate the allowable emissions from Ohio utilities. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 2.2(d) requires “The State's demonstration that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.” The Utilities comment that Ohio's calculation of 240 allowances cannot, by itself, show that the NAAQS are protected by OAC 3745-14-05(C)(7), despite anti-backsliding being the impetus for Ohio's submittal. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 2.2(e) requires “Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.” The Utilities comment that Ohio's submittal does not contain an equivalency demonstration or a modeling demonstration, and that modeling is necessary when reductions are made from sources outside the area. The Utilities believe Ohio EPA should have conducted modeling to support their submittal yet did not. *Response:* EPA disagrees with the Utilities' comments on both substantive and process grounds. For the substance of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V section 2.2(c), Ohio has specified that the rule provides 240 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emission reduction. This number is completely specific and is precisely the type of information that EPA seeks under this section of Appendix V. EPA believes that sections 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) are not relevant to this submittal. EPA uses Appendix V to judge the completeness of a variety of submittals, and EPA must apply only those criteria that are germane to EPA's ultimate decision regarding approvability of the submittal. States routinely submit rules that address control requirements (e.g., to provide reasonably available control technology or, as here, to provide emission reductions to avoid backsliding) which are judged independently of whether the applicable areas are progressing satisfactorily toward attainment or whether modeling has been done to estimate the ambient impact. The factual statements by Ohio EPA personnel that were attached to the Utilities' comments (e.g., that no modeling was performed in support of the submittal) do not alter EPA's views that the submittal was complete. Furthermore, in absence of a completeness determination by EPA within 6 months of receiving the submittal, Ohio's October 6, 2006, submittal became complete 6 months thereafter, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. EPA does not have the discretion now to find the submittal incomplete. *Comment:* The Utilities comment that Ohio's proposed revision to OAC 3745-14-05 does not meet the anti-backsliding requirements of 40 CFR 51.900-51.905. The Utilities state that Ohio did not provide photochemical modeling. They also state that Ohio did not sufficiently demonstrate a benefit to the Cincinnati and Dayton areas, nor can Ohio demonstrate actual reductions in those areas. The Utilities state that EPA Region 5 sent a letter to Ohio on September 20, 2005, in which EPA said that Ohio could claim reductions outside the Cincinnati and Dayton areas so long as they “demonstrate” that the reductions benefit the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. *Response:* EPA is satisfied with Ohio's demonstration that retiring 240 NO <sup>X</sup> allowances will make surplus 240 of the roughly 10,000 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> reductions made from Cincinnati and Dayton area utilities by 2006, which clearly provides benefit to the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. EPA does not require modeling to know that creating 240 surplus allowances will allow the State to credit 240 of the more than 10,000 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions toward compensation for loss of E-Check in 2006. Based on the information that Ohio EPA has provided, EPA is satisfied that the retirement of 240 NO <sup>X</sup> allowances from the 2005 control period will benefit the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. *Comment:* The Utilities comment that today's action will undermine the Utilities' pollution control strategies and confidence in the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call rule. The Utilities state that “random confiscation” of allowances undermines the market system in a way similar to counterfeiting money. *Response:* EPA believes that removing 240 allowances out of a pool of about half a million allowances will not have an appreciable negative effect on the functioning of the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call. The deliberate process that Ohio and EPA have followed in retiring allowances that had been set aside and not issued to any source provided utilities ample opportunity to plan for not receiving any of these allowances. III. What action is EPA taking today? EPA is approving OAC 3745-14-05(C) as submitted by Ohio on October 6, 2006. EPA is approving the withdrawal and permanent retirement of 240 NO <sup>X</sup> new source set aside allowances from the 2005 control period. This action adds a new paragraph (C)(7) to OAC 3745-14-05, and re-orders the existing paragraphs from (C)(7) through (C)(9) to (C)(8) through (C)(10). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly “Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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 the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . 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 April 14, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Oxides of nitrogen, Oxides of nitrogen budget trading program. Dated: January 30, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of 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 KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(141) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(142)On October 6, 2006, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)Chapter 3745-14-05 to permanently retire 240 new source set aside allowances from the State's oxides of nitrogen budget trading program.
(i)*Incorporation by reference.*
(A)Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-14-05 “NO <sup>X</sup> Allowance Allocations,” effective July 17, 2006. [FR Doc. E8-2506 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0920, FRL-8522-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Zero-Emission Vehicle Component of the Low Emission Vehicle Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving, through model year 2011, the portion of New Jersey's low emission vehicle program related to the manufacture and sale of zero-emission vehicles, consistent with California's current low emission vehicle regulations. EPA previously approved New Jersey's low emission vehicle program, but did not take action on the zero-emission vehicle provisions. The intended effect of this action is to approve, as consistent with section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, a control strategy that will help New Jersey achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will be effective March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Public Access Center, 401 East State Street, 1st Floor, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Laurita, *laurita.matthew@epa.gov* at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, telephone number
(212)637-3895, fax number
(212)637-3901. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Description of the SIP Revision II. Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking III. Final EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Description of the SIP Revision Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) prohibits states from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. However, under section 209(b) of the CAA, EPA will grant a waiver of the section 209(a) prohibition to the State of California, thereby allowing California to adopt its own motor vehicle emissions standards, if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. EPA will not grant a section 209(b) waiver if it makes the specific findings listed in that section. Section 177 of the CAA allows other states to adopt and enforce California's standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles, provided that, among other things, such state standards are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted under CAA section 209(b). In addition to the identicality requirement, the state must adopt such standards at least two years prior to the commencement of the model year to which the standards will apply. All state implementation plan
(SIP)revisions submitted to EPA for approval must also meet the requirements of CAA section 110. In January 2004, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation requiring the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to adopt the California low emission vehicle
(LEV)program, known as the LEV II program. Pursuant to this legislation, New Jersey promulgated regulations to adopt a LEV program identical to California's LEV II program. New Jersey's regulations were adopted on November 28, 2005 and became effective on January 17, 2006. New Jersey's LEV program will affect light-duty motor vehicles manufactured in model year 2009 and later. On June 2, 2006, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to EPA, seeking federal approval of its LEV regulations. EPA approved New Jersey's LEV program on August 27, 2007 (72 FR 48936), but did not take action on the zero-emission vehicle
(ZEV)provisions of the program. New Jersey commented on EPA's March 21, 2007, Proposed Rulemaking (72 FR 13227), and requested that EPA approve the ZEV provisions of New Jersey's LEV program, consistent with EPA's section 209(b) waiver that allows California to enforce the ZEV sales requirement through model year 2011. On September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50650), EPA proposed to approve the ZEV provisions of New Jersey's LEV program through the 2011 model year. EPA's approval of the ZEV component of New Jersey's LEV program makes it Federally-enforceable. For further information on New Jersey's LEV program see the March 21, 2007, Proposed Rulemaking (72 FR 13227), the August 27, 2007, Final Rulemaking (72 FR 48936) and the September 4, 2007, ZEV Proposed Rulemaking (72 FR 50650). II. Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking EPA received no comments on the Proposed Rulemaking, published in the September 4, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 50650). III. Final EPA Action EPA is approving the zero-emission vehicle component of New Jersey's LEV program through the 2011 model year, which is identical to the zero-emission vehicle portion of California's LEV II program for which EPA has issued a section 209(b) waiver of pre-emption. Approval of this component of New Jersey's LEV program further ensures that planned emissions reductions attributable to this program will be achieved. The New Jersey LEV program was adopted on November 28, 2005, published in the New Jersey State Register on January 17, 2006 with an effective date of January 17, 2006, and is codified in Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 29 of the New Jersey Administrative Code. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . 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 April 14, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: January 14, 2008. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. 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 FF—New Jersey 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(84) to read as follows: § 52.1570 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(84)Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted on June 2, 2006, by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection which consists of the adoption of California's Zero Emission Vehicle
(ZEV)provisions.
(i)Incorporation by reference:
(A)Regulation Subchapter 29 of Title 7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, entitled “Low Emission Vehicle
(LEV)Program,” sections 29.6, 29.7, and the incorporation of California Section 1962, “Zero Emission Vehicle Standards for 2005 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” within section 29.13(g), effective on January 17, 2006. 3. Section 52.1605 is amended by revising the entry for Subchapter 29 under Title 7, Chapter 27 to read as follows: § 52.1605 EPA-approved New Jersey regulations. State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments * * * * * * * Title 7, Chapter 27 * * * * * * * Subchapter 29, “Low Emission Vehicle
(LEV)Program” January 17, 2006 February 13, 2008, *[Insert Federal Register page citation]* In Section 29.13(g), Title 13, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1961.1 of the California Code of Regulations relating to greenhouse gas emission standards, is not incorporated into the SIP. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-2553 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002; FRL-8529-2] Approval of Louisiana's Petition To Relax the Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Grant Parish Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving the State of Louisiana's request to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP)standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce in Grant Parish, Louisiana, (Grant Parish) during the summer ozone control season—June 1 to September 15 of each year. Grant Parish is a designated attainment area under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) and is a redesignated attainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This action amends our regulations to change the summertime RVP standard for Grant Parish from 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi)to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to our federal RVP regulations is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act. Louisiana's request is supported by evidence that Grant Parish can implement the 9.0 psi RVP standard and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that relaxation of the applicable RVP standard to 9.0 psi will provide economic benefits. This action is being taken without prior proposal because EPA believes that this final rulemaking is noncontroversial, for the reasons set forth in this preamble, and due to the limited scope of this action. DATES: This rule is effective on April 14, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 14, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* • *Fax:* Air and Radiation Docket—(202) 566-9744 • *Mail:* Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002. • *Hand Delivery:* Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Office's normal hours of operations, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the 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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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 *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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 Air and Radiation Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hillson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Mailcode AASMCG, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734)214-4789; fax number:
(734)214-4052; e-mail address: *Hillson.Sean@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA. EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to relax the applicable volatility standard in Grant Parish if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. *Regulated Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Grant Parish. Regulated entities include: Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS codes a Petroleum Refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710 424720 Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220 484230 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This table provides only a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. You should carefully examine the amended regulations in 40 CFR 80.27 to determine whether your facility is impacted. If you have further questions, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. Outline I. Introduction II. What Is the History of Gasoline Volatility Regulation? III. What Are the EPA Rulemaking Actions Addressing the Transition From the 1-Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS? IV. What Is the EPA Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas? A. What Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy? B. How Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy Applied to Grant Parish? V. What Information Supports the Relaxation of Federal RVP Requirements in Grant Parish? A. History B. Louisiana's RVP Relaxation Request and Initial EPA Response C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8-Hour Maintenance Plan D. What Are the Section 110(l) Requirements? VI. Final Action and Rationale VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Introduction This rulemaking describes our final action to approve Louisiana's request to relax the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in Grant Parish during the summer ozone control season—June 1 to September 15. In 1995, EPA redesignated Grant Parish to a 1-hour ozone NAAQS attainment area. Currently, Grant Parish is a designated attainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS will also be called the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards). This preamble is hereafter organized into five parts. Section II provides the history of federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III describes EPA's rulemaking actions to transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard. Section IV provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in former ozone nonattainment areas that have been redesignated to attainment, and how this policy is applied to Grant Parish while taking into account the requirements under the 8-hour ozone standard. Section V reviews the available information to determine if relaxation of the RVP standard in Grant Parish is warranted: Louisiana's history of federal RVP requirements; EPA's redesignation and designation of Grant Parish as attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively; Louisiana's relaxation request prompting this action; and the 8-hour maintenance plan approval to support the request. Finally, Section VI presents EPA's final action in response to the request and our rationale. II. What is the History of Gasoline Volatility Regulation? In 1987, EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. 1 Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease. 1 52 FR 31274 (Aug. 19, 1987). The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”), we promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989, that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the summer ozone control season—June 1 to September 15. These regulations were referred to as Phase I of a two-phase nationwide 2 program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. 3 On June 11, 1990, EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls under Phase II of the volatility control program. 4 These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard or “NAAQS”) during the ozone control season. 2 Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories were excepted. 3 54 FR 11868 (Mar. 22, 1989). 4 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the ozone control season. It further requires EPA to establish more stringent RVP standards in nonattainment areas if we find such standards “necessary to generally achieve comparable evaporative emissions (on a per vehicle basis) in nonattainment areas, taking into consideration the enforceability of such standards, the need of an area for emission control, and economic factors.” Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that we may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment. On December 12, 1991, EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. 5 The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published in 1990. 6 5 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991). 6 See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls, 7 and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, 8 we will rely on States to initiate changes to our volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the statutory limits. 9 In those rulemakings, we explained that the Governor of a State may petition the Agency to set a volatility standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 7 See 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990) for a discussion on procedures by which States could petition EPA for more or less stringent volatility standards. 8 See 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991) and 56 FR 64706 (Dec. 12, 1991). 9 See CAA section 211(h)(1) (allowing EPA to set a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi as necessary to achieve comparable emissions in nonattainment areas considering enforceability, the need of an area for emissions control and economic factors). III. What are the EPA Rulemaking Actions Addressing the Transition from the 1-Hour to 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS? In July 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone standard which would be measured over an 8-hour period, i.e., the 8-hour ozone NAAQS or standard. 10 The 8-hour Ozone NAAQS rule was challenged by numerous litigants and in May 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision remanding, but not vacating, the 8-hour ozone standard. In February 2001, the Supreme Court upheld our authority to set the ozone NAAQS and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit Court for disposition of issues the Court did not address in its initial decision. 11 The Court of Appeals addressed these remaining issues and upheld the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 12 In April 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone standard. 13 10 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). 11 *Whitman* v. *Am. Trucking Ass'ns* , 531 U.S. 457 (2001). 12 *American Trucking Assoc.* v. *EPA* , 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir., 1999). 13 69 FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004). Also in April 2004, we promulgated the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation rule that addressed the revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and identified the 1-hour requirements that would remain applicable after revocation (i.e., the “anti-backsliding provisions”). 14 These requirements varied based on areas' designation for the 1-hour standard and such areas' designation for the 8-hour NAAQS. As part of these anti-backsliding provisions, EPA required areas that had been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour standard (i.e., 1-hour ozone “maintenance” areas) and that were designated attainment for the 8-hour standard to submit a new maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) that would provide for maintenance of the 8-hour standard. 15 After such a plan was approved, anti-backsliding provisions provided relief for such areas from certain 1-hour maintenance plan requirements. Although the Phase 1 Ozone implementation rule was challenged in court and portions of the rule were vacated, the vacated portions of the rule are not relevant to today's Grant Parish volatility relaxation rulemaking. 16 14 69 FR 23951 (Apr. 30, 2004). 15 See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section IV.C.2.c.v and IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4). 16 *S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006 reh'g denied *S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.* v. *EPA* , 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13751 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2007). In November 2005, EPA promulgated the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation rule that addressed various control and planning obligations that are applicable to areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 17 This rule has been challenged and EPA is currently awaiting argument and a decision. 18 No part of the Phase 2 Ozone implementation rule is relevant for today's Grant Parish volatility relaxation rulemaking. 17 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005). 18 *NRDC* v. *EPA* , No. 06-1045 (D.C. Cir.). IV. What is the EPA Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Nonattainment Areas that are Redesignated as Attainment Areas? A. What is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy? Under the amended Phase II volatility regulations, any change in the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. 19 Thus, for former 1-hour nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the 7.8 psi RVP standard will remain in effect, even after such an area is redesignated as being in attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that revises the RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. 20 19 56 FR 64706 (Dec. 12, 1991). 20 As stated in the preamble for the Agency's initial Phase II volatility standards (55 FR 23609), and in the preamble in the proposal to revise those standards (56 FR 24244), EPA may also promulgate a rule to revise the volatility standard in a particular nonattainment area in order to enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program. The Governor of a state, or his designee, may petition EPA for a less stringent standard if such a standard is consistent with the requirements of the Act and if the state can document
(1)particular local economic impact that makes the less stringent standard appropriate and
(2)sufficient alternative programs to achieve attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone. As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the Agency believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the State to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, the Agency will not relax the volatility standard unless the State requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Agency, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. B. How Is the General Volatility Relaxation Policy Applied to Grant Parish? Under the Phase 1 Ozone implementation rule, 1-hour ozone maintenance areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas, such as Grant Parish, are required to develop and submit to EPA a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the Act. 21 In today's rulemaking, we are determining that 1-hour ozone maintenance areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas may rely on the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan, rather than a section 175A maintenance plan as explained above, for purposes of requesting relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard. We come to the conclusion that a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan can be used to make a relaxation demonstration for the following reasons:
(1)Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans contain analogous information and meet similar criteria as section 175A maintenance plans, namely a demonstration of continued maintenance of the ozone standard for at least 10 years using the less stringent volatility standard and that the plan contains contingency measures;
(2)Although the EPA general volatility relaxation policy calls for an approved 175A maintenance plan, the requirement to submit a section 175A maintenance plan for the 8-hour standard does not apply to areas initially designated attainment for that standard; and
(3)Development of a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan is consistent with the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation rule requirements, specifically 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), which is applicable to Grant Parish, and thus use of an approved section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the purpose of relaxing the applicable RVP standard follows logically. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA is allowing Grant Parish to rely on its section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan and the accompanying analysis set forth below in demonstrating the approvability of the State's relaxation request of the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish. 21 See 69 FR 23955 (Apr. 30, 2004), section IV.C.2.c.v and IV.C.2.d; see also 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4). V. What Information Supports the Relaxation of Federal RVP Requirements in Grant Parish? A. History In the summer of 1989, the Phase I gasoline volatility control program was implemented throughout the country. At that time, based on designations issued on September 11, 1978, Grant Parish was a designated ozone nonattainment area. 22 Under the Phase I volatility rule, gasoline volatility requirements throughout the entire State of Louisiana were uniform, although there was some variation by month. 22 43 FR 40412 (Sept. 11, 1978). On November 6, 1991, EPA issued ozone nonattainment designations for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, the nonattainment designation for Grant Parish issued in 1978 continued because Louisiana had not acquired the three years of ambient air quality data necessary to petition for redesignation to attainment. 23 In 1992, under Phase II of the volatility control program, the Grant Parish ozone nonattainment area (at the time) was required to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi. In 1995, EPA approved a request from the State of Louisiana to redesignate Grant Parish to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan. 24 At that time, the State of Louisiana did not make a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility standard at that time; therefore, Grant Parish continued to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi during the ozone control season through the summer of 2005. In 2004, we designated Grant Parish as an 8-hour ozone attainment area. 25 23 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). 24 60 FR 43020 (Aug. 18, 1995). 25 69 FR 23857 (Apr. 30, 2004). B. Louisiana's RVP Relaxation Request and Initial EPA Response In May of 2005, the State of Louisiana requested that the gasoline volatility standard for Grant Parish be relaxed and that enforcement discretion be granted in the interim between the request and the final rulemaking. 26 This petition from the State cited the fact that Grant Parish is a designated 8-hour ozone attainment area and a redesignated 1-hour ozone attainment area that has not measured a 1-hour exceedance in the 10 years since the 1995 maintenance plan became effective. Louisiana also stated the following justifications for the relaxation: First, Grant Parish is classified as rural, is not adjacent to any urban area, and has only seen about 7% population growth from 1990 to 2000 (17,526 to 18,698). Second, a review of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)statistics for Grant Parish show a downward trend from 1990 to 1999. There was a slight increase (2% per year) from 1999 through 2003, although Louisiana qualifies this by stating the increase could be a reflection of increases in population, but is more likely due to changes in VMT reporting in 2001. Third, air quality data shows a general decrease in emissions of ozone-forming pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ). Finally, Louisiana provides evidence that relaxation of the RVP requirement will result in economic benefit to Grant Parish. Outside of the ozone control season, bulk plant operators are able to acquire conventional gasoline from nearby terminals. During the ozone control season, however, bulk plant operators must purchase gasoline meeting the 7.8 psi RVP standard from facilities in Baton Rouge or Lake Charles, Louisiana. Each of these cities is approximately 145 miles from Grant Parish, resulting in a 290-mile roundtrip to deliver compliant fuel. This distance increases the transportation costs and can increase the price of gasoline by an estimated 2 cents per gallon. 26 Letter from Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, to Mayor Richard Greene, Administrator of U.S. EPA Region 6, titled “Relaxation of the Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for Grant Parish” (May 24, 2005). In May of 2006, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance granted enforcement discretion to allow the use of gasoline having a volatility that is no higher than 9.0 psi during the ozone control seasons for Grant Parish from May 16, 2006, to September 16, 2007, or the effective date of the action set forth in this rulemaking, whichever is earlier. 27 27 Letter from Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator of the U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, titled “Enforcement Discretion Regarding the Gasoline Volatility Standard for Grant Parish, Louisiana” (May 16, 2006). C. EPA Approval of the Grant Parish 8-Hour Maintenance Plan On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted a maintenance plan for Grant Parish to EPA Region 6 that ensures continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2014, which is 10 years following designation under the 8-hour standard as required by 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii). EPA has determined that the maintenance plan also meets the other statutory and regulatory requirements and is consistent with EPA guidance; therefore, in November 2007, EPA published a direct final rule in the **Federal Register** that approved the 8-hour maintenance plan for Grant Parish. 28 No adverse comments were received, and the rule became effective on January 7, 2008. The State's maintenance plan submission, EPA's Technical Support Document, and approval rulemaking action are incorporated by reference in today's action. 28 72 FR 62579 (November 6, 2007); Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271. EPA determined that the Grant Parish maintenance plan adequately addresses the components of a maintenance plan: a 2002 base year attainment inventory; projected emission inventories for the future years of 2008, 2011, and 2014 with a maintenance demonstration; verification of continued attainment with the use of either 7.8 or 9.0 psi gasoline; and contingency measures. Some of these components are presented in greater detail below. The following table 29 provides VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions data for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emission inventory data for the major anthropogenic source categories developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies and keeping 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in place for the years 2008, 2011, and 2014. 29 The “Total VOCs” values for 2008, 2011, and 2014 in this table differ from the values in the November 6, 2007, maintenance plan approval rulemaking. These differences were due to a typographical error by EPA in the “Onroad VOCs” row; those errors have been corrected here resulting in new “Total VOCs” values. The changes accurately reflect the data submitted by the state of Louisiana and yield lower “Total VOCs” values in all future years. Therefore the conclusion that Grant Parish has demonstrated maintenance of the 8-hour standard is still valid. Grant Parish.—VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> Emission Inventory Baseline Emissions source 2002
(tpd)2008
(tpd)2011
(tpd)2014
(tpd)Point Source VOCs 0.66 0.83 0.91 0.98 Point Source NO X 1.85 1.96 2.01 2.06 Non-Point
(Area)Source VOCs 1.57 1.62 1.63 1.66 Non-point
(Area)Source NO X 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.67 Nonroad VOCs 5.49 4.66 4.20 3.83 Nonroad NO X 1.56 1.41 1.33 1.23 Onroad VOCs 1.27 0.80 0.63 0.52 Onroad NO X 1.71 1.12 0.83 0.62 Total VOCs 8.99 7.91 7.37 6.99 Total NO X 5.73 5.13 4.82 4.58 As shown in the table above, Louisiana has demonstrated that the future year 8-hour ozone emissions will be less than the 2002 base attainment year's emissions. Measures that will provide for additional 8-hour ozone emission reductions include:
(1)Implementation of Federal VOC Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, Consumer Products, and Architectural Coatings;
(2)Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, and gasoline and highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements;
(3)Federal control of emissions from non-road diesel engines and fuels; and
(4)implementation of the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 30 30 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). In the Grant Parish maintenance plan's attainment inventory, Louisiana provided an analysis of VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources comparing 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline for three projection years: 2008, 2011, and 2014. Grant Parish.—RVP Comparison Effect on VOC Emissions Year 7.8 psi RVP VOCs
(tpd)9.0 psi RVP VOCs
(tpd)2002 1.27 N/A 2008 0.80 0.90 2011 0.63 0.70 2014 0.52 0.57 Modeling results for this comparison show that the overall effect on VOC emissions from between 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline was 0.1 tpd or less for each of the three projection years, and that each of the projected VOC emission inventories from 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is less than the VOC emission inventory from the 2002 attainment year inventory. Therefore, the Grant Parish 8-hour maintenance plan demonstrates that use of the less stringent 9.0 psi RVP gasoline will not interfere with 8-hour ozone maintenance. In its approval of the maintenance plan for Grant Parish, EPA concluded that “the Grant Parish 8-hour maintenance plan demonstrates that the use of either 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in the parish will allow the area to continue to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.” D. What are the Section 110(l) Requirements? Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (“RFP”) (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The modeling in the maintenance plan showed a very small increase in VOC emissions with the relaxed RVP standard when comparing emissions from 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in future years, but the emissions projections for the future years using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in Grant Parish still reflect a decrease in emissions from the 2002 baseline year and a downward trend in VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions through 2014. Therefore, and as discussed in more detail above, Louisiana has demonstrated that EPA's approval of the relaxed RVP standard in Grant Parish will not interfere with continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in that Parish. VI. Final Action and Rationale EPA is taking direct final action to approve Louisiana's request to relax the federal RVP standard applicable to summertime gasoline supplied to Grant Parish. This action changes the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). This action will become effective on April 14, 2008, unless adverse comment is received by March 14, 2008. Relaxation of the applicable RVP standard for Grant Parish is based on the fact that Grant Parish is a redesignated 1-hour ozone attainment area and a designated 8-hour ozone attainment area that has an approved section 110(a)(1) 8-hr maintenance plan. This maintenance plan demonstrates that Grant Parish can maintain the 8-hour ozone standard for the duration of the plan while using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline. As also discussed earlier, this SIP revision meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act. Finally, relaxation of the applicable standard will result in economic benefits as increased transportation costs associated with the delivery of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline will be eliminated. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This action will relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in Grant Parish, Louisiana, during the ozone control season (June 1 to September 15), from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is therefore expected not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility Control program. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Today's rule merely relaxes the Federal RVP standard for gasoline in the Grant Parish area, and thus avoids imposing the costs that the existing Federal regulations would otherwise impose. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed above, the rule relaxes an existing standard and affects only the gasoline industry. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255 August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” This final rule 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule would relax the applicable RVP standard in Grant Parish, LA, during the ozone control season (June 1st to September 15th) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. It applies only to Grant Parish, LA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 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. This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. As previously discussed, the Grant Parish area has continued to meet the 1-hour ozone standard since 1995 and has met the 8-hour ozone standard since initial designations were issued in 2004. The maintenance plan approved on November 6, 2007 shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the entire maintenance time period of 2002 through 2014 with the 9.0 psi RVP standard. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, section 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. The 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, Feb. 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 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 applicable 8-hour ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, the State of Louisiana has demonstrated in a maintenance plan that this action will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and therefore disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. 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 the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . 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(a). This rule will be effective April 14, 2008. VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 7, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. Title 40, chapter I, part 80 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 80—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a). 2. In § 80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by revising the entry for Louisiana and adding a new footnote 4 to read as follows: § 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * * Applicable Standards 1 1992 and Subsequent Years State May June July August September * * * * * * * Louisiana: Grant Parish 4 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 All other volatility nonattainment areas 9.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 * * * * * * * 1 Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi). * * * * * * * 4 The standard for Grant Parish from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2007 was 7.8 psi. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-2702 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R09-2007-OAR-1109; FRL-8528-4] Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Imperial County, 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes EPA's finding of nonattainment and reclassification of the Imperial County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Imperial County). EPA finds that Imperial County has failed to attain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS” or “standard”) by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act
(CAA)and Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)for marginal nonattainment areas. As a result, on the effective date of this rule, Imperial County will be reclassified by operation of law as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area attainment date for the reclassified Imperial County will be “as expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than June 15, 2010. Once reclassified, California must submit State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for moderate areas, as required by the CAA. EPA has determined that the State must submit these SIP revisions by December 31, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-2007-OAR-1109 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. While 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 in 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: Adrienne Priselac, EPA Region IX,
(415)972-3285, *priselac.adrienne@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What is the background for this action? II. Response to Comments III. What is the effect of this action? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Imperial County Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date B. Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Imperial County Area IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? On November 23, 2007, EPA published its proposed finding that Imperial County did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007, the applicable attainment date (72 FR 65682). The proposed finding was based upon ambient air quality data from the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. In addition, as explained in the proposed rule, the area did not qualify for an attainment date extension under the provisions of CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907, because the 4th highest daily value in the attainment year was greater than 0.084 ppm. In the November 23, 2007, proposal, EPA proposed that the area would be reclassified by operation of law to “moderate” nonattainment, in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2). II. Response to Comments EPA published its proposed rule on November 23, 2007, and provided an opportunity for public comment. The public comment period ended on December 24, 2007. EPA received no comments. No further opportunity for public comment will be provided. III. What is the effect of this action? A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Imperial County and New Attainment Date Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA finds that Imperial County failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004 and 40 CFR 51.903(a)) for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. When this finding becomes effective, Imperial County will be reclassified by operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment. The reclassification to the next higher classification is mandated by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA. (see the discussion in the proposal at 72 FR 65684) Moderate areas are required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after designation or June 15, 2010. The “as expeditiously as practicable” attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Also in this action, EPA is finalizing its proposal establishing a schedule by which California will submit the SIP revisions necessary to meet the requirements for areas reclassified to moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Imperial County Area In its proposal, EPA addressed the schedule by which California is required to submit a revised SIP meeting the requirements for the Imperial County moderate nonattainment area. When an area is reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the CAA to adjust the CAA's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, a state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (71 FR 61236, October 17, 2006). For the purposes of this reclassification for Imperial County, January 1, 2009, is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA is finalizing its proposal requiring that the required SIP revisions be submitted by California as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2008. This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable controls no later than January 1, 2009. The area was previously required to submit the requirements for marginal areas, and under section 182(b) remains required to meet them, and now must meet the requirements for moderate areas as well. A revised SIP must include the following moderate area requirements:
(1)An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908),
(2)provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912),
(3)reasonable further progress reductions in emissions (40 CFR 51.910),
(4)contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)), and
(5)NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC emission offsets of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (40 CFR 51.165(a)). See also the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas set forth in CAA section 182(b). 1 1 A vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program would normally be listed as a requirement for an ozone moderate or above nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 for 1990 are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 48027, September 18, 1995). IV. Final Action Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is making a final determination that the Imperial County “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007. Upon the effective date of this rule, the Imperial County “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area will be reclassified by operation of law as a “moderate” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is establishing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the area is reclassified. The required SIP revision for California must be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2008. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking makes a factual determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act” or “UMRA”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that this rulemaking action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Also, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore is not subject to the requirements of section 203. EPA believes that the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation of law. Therefore EPA believes that the finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rule 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 determines that the Imperial County area has not attained by its applicable attainment date, reclassifies the Imperial County area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and adjusts applicable deadlines. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 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. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely determines that the Imperial Valley area has not attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, reclassifies the Imperial Valley area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and adjusts applicable deadlines. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (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 Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards”
(VCS)if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. This action merely determines that the Imperial County area has not attained by the applicable attainment date, reclassifies the Imperial County area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and adjusts applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. 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 the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . 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 rule will be effective March 14, 2008. K. Petitions for Judicial Review 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 April 14, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 24, 2008. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. In § 81.305 the “California-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” table is amended by revising the entry for “Imperial County:” to read as follows: § 81.305 California. California-Ozone [8-hour standard] Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date Classification * * * * * * * Imperial County, CA: Imperial County Nonattainment 3/14/08 Subpart 2/Moderate. * * * * * * * 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E8-2698 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637; FRL-8345-1] 1,3-Dichloropropene and metabolites; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in or on grape. Dow AgroSciences, LLC requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective February 13, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 2008, 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-2007-0637. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in 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: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9354; e-mail address: *waller.mary@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), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. 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 an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket 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 pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0637 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before April 14, 2008. 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 that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637, 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'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. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53575-53577) (FRL-8144-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F6253) by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide, 1,3-dichloropropene, in or on grape at 0.009 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroScience, LLC, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, at *http://www.regulations.gov* . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised and raised the tolerance level to include the combined residues of the parent chemical, *cis* - and *trans* -1,3 dichloropropene, and the metabolites, *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroacrylic acid and *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroallyl alcohol which are considered to be of equal toxicity to the parent chemical. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for the combined residues of *cis* - and *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene, *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroacrylic acid, and *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroallyl alcohol (1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites) on grape at 0.018 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The toxicology database is considered to be adequate to support the proposed and existing uses of 1,3-dichloropropene. 1,3-Dichloropropene showed moderate acute toxicity by the oral and dermal exposure routes (Toxicity Category II), was moderately irritating to the eye and skin, and was a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs. It is classified as Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity and produced tremors, convulsions, salivation, lacrimation, diarrhea, lethargy and death at concentrations 647 ppm or higher. Consistent with the irritant properties of 1,3-dichloropropene, there was evidence of degenerative changes in the nasal olfactory epithelium and histopathological changes of the respiratory epithelium in rats and mice after subchronic inhalation exposure. Following chronic inhalation exposure, the olfactory region of the nasal cavity appeared to be the target organ in rats while lung adenomas were induced in mice. Similarly, following oral exposure, 1,3-dichloropropene induced histopathological lesions in rats and/or mice including forestomach squamous cell papillomas and carcinomas, liver masses/neoplastic nodules, urinary bladder carcinomas, and alveolar/brochiolar adenomas. Increases in hematopoietic activity and decreased body weights were also noted in dogs and mice, respectively. Accordingly, 1,3-dichloropropene has been classified as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” via both the oral and inhalation routes. As a result, cancer potency factors (Q1*) have been calculated for both routes of exposure. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The risk assessment dated January 24, 2008 is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637 in that docket. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors
(UFs)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in the document titled 1,3-Dichloropropene: Proposed New Use for Drip Irrigation in Vineyards: HED Human Health Risk Assessment at page 21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerance. There are no other tolerances for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996, or 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated residues and assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT). Residues of *cis* - and *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene and three of the four metabolites were assumed to be at one-half the limit of detection (0.001 ppm) since residues were non-detectable in all field trials at shorter pre-harvest intervals
(PHI)than the proposed use pattern. Residues at the proposed PHI in one trial of one metabolite were at the limit of quantitation (0.003 ppm), so the LOQ was used. The metabolites were assumed to have equal toxicity to the parent compound, so the total anticipated residue used in the dietary assessment for the chronic analyses was 0.0055 ppm. iii. *Cancer* . The cancer dietary exposure assessment utilized the same data and assumptions used in the chronic dietary exposure assessment. For dietary exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene, an oral cancer potency factor (Q1* of 1.22 X 10 -1 (mg/kg/day) -1 ) was used to assess cancer risk. iv. *Anticipated residue and percent crop treated
(PCT)information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient surface water monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive surface water monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates from surface water sources are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites for chronic exposures are estimated to be 16.2 parts per billion (ppb). The limited surface water monitoring data available from areas of high use did not show detectable residues of 1,3-dichloropropene in 123 samples. There is sufficient data for tap water from groundwater wells available for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites. A total of 518 wells were selected in the Central Columbia Plateau, Upper Snake River Basin, North Platte River, Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, and the George/Florida basins. The wells were intended to be among the most vulnerable wells available for sampling in each region because they were in high use areas, were among the shallowest in each region, and were located in close proximity to fields that had received 1,3-dichloropropene applications in the recent past. 1,3-Dichloropropene and metabolites were not found above 0.145 ppb in 5,800 samples.1,3-Dichloropropene or its degradates were detected in 12% of the wells. Only three wells had two detections over the course of the study; no wells had more than two detections. Of the approximately 5,800 samples, only 68 detections were observed for either the parent compound or the metabolites. Modeled surface water estimates of drinking water concentrations and the maximum ground water concentration from monitoring data were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the surface drinking water concentration value of 16.2 ppb was used and the ground drinking water concentration value of 0.14 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). 1,3-Dichloropropene is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. However, due to the volatility of 1,3-dichloropropene, residential bystander exposure may occur when 1,3-dichloropropene is applied to agricultural fields near residential areas. Residential bystander exposure may occur because of emissions from treated fields. These emissions can travel to non-target areas and are referred to as bystander exposure. Bystander exposure can occur as a result of being in contact with residues that are emitted from a known single source (e.g., a single application to an agricultural field near a residential area) and from multiple sources (e.g., applications to numerous agricultural fields) within a localized agricultural region (ambient air exposure). i. *Inhalation exposure from a single source* . Acute exposures to bystanders from single post-plant agricultural field fumigation events and their associated risks were calculated using the distributional/probabilistic modeling method. Distributional modeling was done with the Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for Fumigants (PERFUM). Exposures were also analyzed using the actual field study data (i.e, the monitoring method). Additional information on the methods used to assess bystander risks are given in Section 6.1.1 from the Phase 5 Registration Eligibility Decision.: *Methods Used to Calculate Bystander Exposures and Risks From Known Sources* located at *http://www.regulations.gov* in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0124-0052, page 27. a. Acute exposure was estimated by using the maximum 24-hour time-weighted average
(TWA)from each field volatility study. b. Short-term exposure was estimated by using the highest 7-day average for each direction from each field volatility study. c. Intermediate-term exposures (consecutive exposures lasting 30 days to several months) is expected to be less likely since 1,3-dichloropropene products are only used 1 to 2 times per field each year. d. Chronic exposure is not expected since it is unlikely that bystanders will be continually exposed to significant concentrations of 1,3-dichloropropene for 6 consecutive months or longer. Chronic exposure from multiple (ambient air) sources is more likely and described in section 3 (ii)(c). e. Cancer risks to 1,3-dichloropropene were estimated for multiple (ambient air) sources as that exposure scenario is more representative of a lifetime of exposure and are described in the following section 3(ii)(d). ii. *Inhalation exposure from ambient air sources* . Exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene from ambient air was evaluated using monitoring data from California. These data reflect existing pre-plant fumigation uses that are applied at rates over 10 times the rate of the proposed post-plant fumigation use on grapes. These data consist of two basic types that include targeted monitoring that occurred in a high use area during the season of use. The other type of data was collected as part of the routine Toxic Air Contaminant
(TAC)program and focus on background levels in urban environments. a. Acute exposure was estimated by using the maximum 24-hour time-weighted average
(TWA)from the monitoring data. b. Short-term and intermediate-term exposures were estimated by comparing the mean of the weekly mean estimate from the monitoring data. c. Chronic exposures were calculated using the targeted regional source ambient data. These calculations should be considered as rangefinder estimates of exposure only because of a lack of monitoring studies specifically designed for this purpose. Short- and intermediate-term estimates were amortized to reflect a potential for exposure of 180 days out of each calendar year in order to calculate chronic estimates of exposure. This was based on the approximate use patterns for 1,3-dichloropropene over a year in high use areas. Results based on all of these calculations, as indicated above, do not represent a risk concern to the Agency and in most cases risks were far below the target level of concern (e.g., by orders of magnitude). There were no ambient monitoring studies targeting areas of high use that collected air samples over an entire year that would be considered representative of a chronic exposure pattern. In these studies the focus was more on the actual season of use so these data were typically collected for only 9 weeks or so which represents the duration of the typical application season. However, in order to be able to evaluate the possibility of chronic exposures in high use areas the Agency utilized the seasonal mean of means from the high use areas and supposed that exposures could be maintained at this rate for a sustained period of 6 months which is twice as long as a normal application season. This approach does have some uncertainty associated with it but the Agency believes that this approach does not underestimate exposure because monitoring data were collected in the season of use in areas of high use. Additionally, risks calculated based on this method, as indicated above, are typically well below the Agency's level of concern. In addition to using the targeted monitoring data, the Agency also used the urban background monitoring data to calculate chronic risks. In this case, the data were intentionally designed to be used to evaluate longer-term exposure levels. Many of the samples collected in this network did not even contain measurable residues over the course of the monitoring years in question but chronic risks were still evaluated as a precautionary measure. d. For cancer risk assessment, the lifetime average daily exposure
(LADE)was calculated using the mean of weekly means and assumed that exposure lasts the length of the longest monitoring period (9 weeks/63 days). 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to 1,3-dichloropropene and any other substances and 1,3-dichloropropene does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that 1,3-dichloropropene has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no evidence (quantitative or qualitative) of susceptibility and no residual uncertainties with regard to pre- and/or post-natal toxicity following *in utero* exposure to rats or rabbits and pre- and/or post-natal exposures to rats. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for 1,3-dichloropropene is complete. ii. There is no indication that 1,3-dichloropropene is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that 1,3-dichloropropene results in increased susceptibility following *in utero* and/or post-natal exposure in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% crop treated and average anticipated residues. Conservative surface water modeling estimates were used, and sufficient monitoring data were used to assess ground water concentrations. There are no residential uses of 1,3-dichloropropene and conservative modeling was used to estimate bystander exposure. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of expsure
(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For the acute, short-, intermediate-, and long-term assessments, the toxicity endpoints selected for inhalation and dietary exposures should not be aggregated since no common endpoints were identified at the LOAEL in studies conducted via the oral or inhalation routes. 1,3-Dichloropropene has been classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans via the oral and inhalation routes. However, the types of tumors observed in the inhalation and oral studies were different. Therefore, the oral and inhalation exposures were not aggregated. 1. *Acute risk* . An endpoint was not selected for acute dietary risk assessment because there were no effects attributable to a single dose (exposure) via the oral route. Therefore, 1,3-dichloropropene is not expected to pose an acute dietary risk. For residential bystander acute inhalation risk resulting from exposure to a single source, the lowest acute MOE was 400 based on the application rate in the field volatility data and the lowest acute MOE was 160 based on the maximum label rate. The risk estimates did not exceed the level of concern using the PERFUM modeling method. For residential bystander acute inhalation risk resulting from exposure to ambient air sources, the lowest acute MOE was 2,700 based on California ambient air monitoring data. The MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern of < 30. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites from food and water (ground water sources) will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population group (children 1 to 2 years old) and from food and water (surface water sources) will utilize < 5% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population group, infants < 1 year old. Residential bystander chronic inhalation exposure from a single source is not expected to occur and therefore, does not pose an inhalation risk. For residential bystander chronic inhalation risk resulting from exposure to ambient air sources, the lowest chronic MOE was 130 based on California ambient air monitoring data. The MOE does not exceed the Agency's level of concern of < 30. 3. *Short-term risk* . For residential bystander short-term inhalation risk resulting from exposure to a single source, the lowest short-term MOE was 60 based on the application rate in the field volatility data and based on the maximum label rate. For residential bystander short-term inhalation risk resulting from exposure to ambient air sources, the lowest short-term MOE was 1,700 based on California ambient air monitoring data. The MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern of < 30. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Residential bystander intermediate-term inhalation exposure from a single source is unlikely to occur and therefore, does not pose an inhalation risk. For residential bystander intermediate-term inhalation risk resulting from exposure to ambient air sources, the lowest intermediate-term MOE was 70 based on California ambient air monitoring data. The MOE does not exceed the Agency's level of concern of < 30. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The aggregated food and water risk represent upper bound risks for a person living in agricultural areas where 1,3-dichloropropene is used extensively or where a person obtains drinking water from an aquifer that led directly from an area where 1,3-dichloropropene was used. The aggregate chronic dietary cancer risk estimates for the general U.S. population resulting from exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in food and water (ground water sources) is 7 X 10 -7 and from exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in food and water (surface water sources) is 4 X 10 -5 . Although risk for drinking water from surface water sources for 1,3-dichloropropene exceeds the Agency's level of concern (risk estimates generally in the range of 1 in 1 million, interpreted as > 1 to 3 X 10 -6 ); it should be noted that concentrations of 1,3-dichloropropene in tap water from ground water wells were approximately 100 times lower than those found in the field ground water study and several orders of magnitude lower than modeled estimates of 1,3-dichloropropene in groundwater. Therefore, it is highly likely that actual drinking water concentrations of 1,3-dichloropropene from surface water sources would also be much lower. 1,3-Dichloropropene and its metabolites are highly volatile compounds, and the models used to generate surface water and ground water estimates are not designed for volatile chemicals. The limited surface water monitoring data available in areas of high use do not show any detections of 1,3-dichloropropene and its degradates. Therefore, the Agency does not have a concern for the aggregate cancer risk from oral exposures to 1,3-dichloropropene and its metabolites. Cancer risk was estimated using 1,3-dichloropropene ambient air monitoring data collected from over 20 sites over multiple years to estimate exposure over a lifetime. These sites were in areas of high use and in urban environments. The cancer risk estimates for all but one monitoring site, in a high use area, ranged from 2 X 10 -6 to 9 X 10 -8 , which are below the Agency's level of concern. The monitoring data for the one site resulted in a risk estimate of 6 X 10 -6 , which does exceed the Agency's level of concern. However, risks calculated using data from the same site in the following year was almost two orders of magnitude lower. Therefore, over a lifetime of exposure, the risk estimates would likely be below the level of concern. It should be noted that in more populated urban environments, air concentrations were below the analytical limit of detection in 21 of 28 sites/year combinations considered. In the remaining seven site/year combinations, values were measured but did not result in cancer risks of concern. Therefore, the Agency does not have a concern for the cancer risk from 1,3-dichloropropene. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Dow AgroSciences, LLC submitted a gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) method, Method GRM 99.09.R1, for the determination of residues of *cis* - and *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene. The method was adequately validated using fortified samples of grape. Recoveries of *cis* -1,3-dichloropropene ranged from 70% to 114% and recoveries of *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene ranged from 77% to 113% from samples fortified at 0.003, 0.010, 0.050, and 0.50 ppm. The fortification levels used in method validation are adequate to bracket expected residue levels. Adequate independent laboratory validation
(ILV)data were submitted for Method GRM 99.09.R1 using samples of grape. Dow AgroSciences, LLC submitted a GC/MS method, Method GRM 99.18, for the determination of residues of 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid. The validated LOQ is 0.003 ppm for each analyte in grape. The method was adequately validated using fortified samples of grape. Recoveries of *cis* -3-chloroallyl alcohol ranged from 74% to 90%, recoveries of *trans* -3-chloroallyl alcohol ranged from 82% to 95%, recoveries of *cis* -chloroacrylic acid ranged from 93% to 98%, and recoveries of *trans* -chloroacrylic acid ranged from 91% to 96% from samples fortified at 0.003, 0.006, and 0.030 ppm. The fortification levels used in method validation are adequate to bracket expected residue levels. The Agency has tentatively concluded that the metabolite method is suitable for enforcement. Adequate enforcement methodology (GC/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Canadian or Codex Maximum Residue limits for residues of 1,3-dichloropropene for any commodity. C. Conditions 1. An independent laboratory validation of Method GRM 99.18 and multi-residue method testing will be required as confirmatory data. 2. In order to refine the exposure estimates from PRZM-EXAMS, the following data will be required: an aerobic soil metabolism study on additional soils (parent and metabolites); an aerobic aquatic metabolism study (parent and metabolites); an aqueous photolysis study (indirect and parent); a soil photolysis study (parent); and a photolysis/oxidation in air study (parent). V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of *cis* - and *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene, *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroacrylic acid, and *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroallyl alcohol, in or on grape at 0.018 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 1, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.636 is added to subpart C to read as follows: § 180.636 1,3-dichloropropene; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide *cis* - and *trans* -1,3-dichloropropene and its metabolites *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroacrylic acid, and *cis* - and *trans* -3-chloroallyl alcohol in or on the following commodities. Commodity Parts per million Grape 0.018
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E8-2480 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1611 Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. ACTION: Final rule—correction. SUMMARY: The Legal Services Corporation (“Corporation”) is required by law to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. On January 30, 2008 the Corporation issued a document updating the specified income levels to reflect the annual amendments to the Federal Poverty Guidelines as issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. This notice corrects a typo appearing in the supplementary information, but does not affect the income levels set forth in the charts. Specifically, in the sentence in the last paragraph of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , 73 FR 5458, Jan. 30, 2008, beginning “These charts are for references purposes * * *,” the first percentage referred to should be “125%” instead of “200%.” DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective as of January 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007;
(202)295-1624; *mcohan@lsc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance, and the Act provides that other specified factors shall be taken into account along with income. Section 1611.3(c) of the Corporation's regulations establishes a maximum income level equivalent to one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Since 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services has been responsible for updating and issuing the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The revised figures for 2008 are equivalent to 125% of the current Federal Poverty Guidelines as published on January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3971). LSC published the charts listing income levels that are 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines at 73 FR 5458, Jan. 30, 2008. These charts are for reference purposes only as an aid to grant recipients in assessing the financial eligibility of an applicant whose income is greater than 125% of the applicable Federal Poverty Guidelines amount, but less than 200% of the applicable Federal Poverty Guidelines amount (and who may be found to be financially eligible under duly adopted exceptions to the annual income ceiling in accordance with sections 1611.3, 1611.4 and 1611.5). Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2427 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 0612243163-7151-01] RIN 0648-AU59 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Revisions to Bycatch Reduction Devices and Testing Protocols AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In accordance with the framework procedures for adjusting management measures specified in regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic FMP), NMFS issues this final rule to consolidate and make modifications to the Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manuals (Manual) for the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic regions. This final rule also revises the bycatch reduction device
(BRD)certification criterion for the western Gulf of Mexico and certifies additional BRDs. The intended effect of this final rule is to improve bycatch reduction in the shrimp fisheries and better meet the requirements of national standard 9. DATES: This final rule is effective March 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)and the consolidated and revised Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual are available from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308. Comments regarding the approved collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule should be submitted in writing to Jason Rueter at the Southeast Regional Office address (above) and to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail at David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-824-5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: *Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for shrimp in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)of the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf)and the South Atlantic are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The regulations implement the Gulf FMP prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the South Atlantic FMP prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). On October 12, 2007, NMFS published the proposed rule to revise the bycatch reduction device testing protocols for the Gulf and South Atlantic regions, revise the BRD certification criterion for the western Gulf, and certify additional BRDs (72 FR 58031). Public comment on the proposed rule was requested through November 13, 2007. The rationale for the measures contained in this final rule is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Comments and Responses The following is a summary of the comments NMFS received on the proposed rule and NMFS' respective responses. Three comment letters were received during the comment period. In addition, a non-governmental organization submitted comments signed by 1,266 individuals in support of the proposed action. *Comment 1* : NMFS should implement the proposed changes as part of a comprehensive plan to address the significant amount of bycatch associated with this fishery and help end overfishing and rebuild the red snapper stock. *Response* : This rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan addressing bycatch in the shrimp fishery and overfishing of the red snapper resource. This rulemaking to provide additional BRDs to the fishery will support additional actions taken by the GMFMC and NMFS. In 2006, the GMFMC recommended, and NMFS implemented, an individual fishing quota
(IFQ)for the commercial Gulf red snapper fishery; in general, IFQs tend to help reduce fishing mortality. To better control overall effort in the shrimp fishery, the GMFMC recommended, and NMFS implemented, a moratorium on the issuance of Federal shrimp vessel permits. Approximately 2,000 vessels qualified for a moratorium permit; this is a substantial reduction from the number of vessels participating in the fishery in the past. In addition, the GMFMC recommended, and NMFS is currently considering several actions to end overfishing of red snapper by 2010 and rebuild the stock by 2032. The recommended actions include a substantial reduction in the total allowable catch for the directed commercial and recreational red snapper fishery, harvesting restrictions to restrain the recreational fishery to its quota, and possible time-area closures for the shrimp fishery to reduce bycatch mortality on juvenile red snapper. *Comment 2* : The proposed changes to increase flexibility in the field testing procedures for experimental BRDs should substantially improve the practicability of the testing criteria and procedures that currently exist. Many of the changes will better allow research to be adapted to the real-world practical realities of shrimp trawling and, as a consequence, will encourage more fishermen to participate in testing new BRD designs and configurations. *Response* : The procedures prescribed for testing BRDs in the field were rigorous in an attempt to reduce the statistical uncertainty of the results. However, these rigorous field sampling procedures and the inflexible statistical procedures hindered the successful certification of several BRD designs that showed promise at reducing substantial amounts of bycatch. This discourages innovative developments to improve BRDs. *Comment 3* : Replacing the current tow time restrictions with a more realistic requirement for such adjustments to be reasonable will allow fishermen to adapt to local fishing conditions and successfully complete a test on an experimental BRD. However, the proposed rule indicated any tow time changes made during a field test would need to be approved by the Regional Administrator
(RA)at the conclusion of the test, and the changes may be disapproved. There should be a more deliberate process for the applicant and NMFS to resolve what the acceptable limits will be on tow time adjustments. This should be done on a case-by-case basis before the testing begins and as part of the initial design of the operations plan. This will avoid the situation of after-the-fact rejections of the tests by the RA and the resulting wasted time and resources. *Response* : It is the responsibility of the applicant to make logical and reasonable proposals for tow times in the research plan submitted to the RA requesting a Letter of Authorization to conduct a test on an experimental BRD. The research plan should also include a “contingency” plan if any of the primary procedures have to be changed during a test. Changes to the tow time made during a test should follow a similar logical and reasonable rationale. Even under the best pre-planned event, there may be a need to make such a change during a test. For example, the total catch taken during a tow may be greater than what was anticipated in the applicant's proposal. Under such conditions, shorter tow times would produce manageable quantities of catch for sampling. Under the new procedures, when the final test results are submitted to NMFS for review, the applicant would simply need to document the need for such a change, and provide a good rationale for such change. The rationale for the change would be reviewed by the RA, in consultation with Southeast Fisheries Science Center staff, on a case-by-case basis. *Comment 4* : The current requirement to rotate gear between the port and starboard sides every four to six tows
(Gulf)or daily (South Atlantic) to eliminate net or side bias is highly impracticable and has presented a serious obstacle to participation in the testing program. The proposed change would allow the applicant to propose an acceptable rotational schedule that still ensures equal numbers of tows will be conducted with the BRD candidate on both sides. In the case of a quad-rig (4-net) vessel, NMFS should additionally allow the applicant to use the candidate BRD in one of the two nets on each side of the vessel, simultaneously, as an alternative means to eliminate bias that might result from testing on just one side of the vessel. This will help eliminate the numerous practical difficulties associated with rotating gear. *Response* : BRD testing is conducted by comparing the differences in the catch and bycatch of two nets towed simultaneously by a single vessel, where one net contains an experimental BRD, the other net has no BRD. Assuming the two nets have equal or similar fishing efficiencies, the differences in catch and bycatch between the two nets can be attributed to the inclusion of the experimental BRD in one net. In reality, no two nets will have identical fishing efficiencies, nor will each net encounter exactly the same number of each species during a tow. Therefore, the paired tests will always have some, albeit minor, bias between nets. The requirement to rotate the experimental BRD from one net to another on a regular basis is intended to negate this bias. Additionally, there may be some differences in the catch between outboard and inboard nets in a quad-rig system, especially for the inboard net located behind the try net. Comparisons of the catch of an inboard net to the catch of an outboard net adds another variable for consideration. For this reason, to make the paired comparison as balanced as possible, the procedure has always designated the two outboard nets be used as experimental and control nets. Nevertheless, NMFS does not automatically exclude the proposed concept to place an experimental BRD in a net on both sides of the vessel, and compare the catch of those nets against the catch of the other two nets that do not contain a BRD. The revisions to the testing procedures are intended to provide the applicant with the flexibility to make a reasonable proposal for a scientifically and statistically valid experiment. Classification The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that this rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the shrimp fisheries in the Gulf and the South Atlantic regions and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). This final rule will modify the procedures for field testing BRD candidates for use in the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ commercial shrimp fisheries, will modify the bycatch reduction criterion for certifying BRDs for use in the penaeid shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ west of Cape San Blas, Florida (western Gulf), and certify new BRDs for the fisheries. The purpose of this final rule is to implement more practical field testing procedures for BRD certification candidates and to establish a realistic bycatch reduction threshold for the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery. No significant issues were raised by public comments in response to the IRFA. Therefore, no changes were made in the final rule as a result of such comments. The primary entities that are expected to apply for the BRD certification process are state government, academic, and not-for-profit entities. Independent commercial shrimping operations in either the Gulf or South Atlantic may also be included among applicants. In addition to being potential testing applicants, Gulf shrimp vessels are expected to be indirectly impacted by the modification to the bycatch reduction criterion. NMFS estimates up to 24 applicants will apply for the BRD certification process during the first year and a smaller number in following years. While the identity of entities that might pursue future BRD testing cannot be determined with any certainty, based on past applicants, BRD testing is expected to be undertaken by NMFS, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Texas A&M University, the University of Georgia, the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc., other institutions, and owners of shrimp vessels. There are approximately 700 vessels permitted to operate in the South Atlantic EEZ commercial shrimp fishery. The most current assessment of the South Atlantic commercial shrimp fishery covers the period 2000-2002 and encompasses vessels that operated in both state and EEZ waters. While this assessment covered a larger universe of vessels, an average of approximately 1,900 vessels per year, and different economic conditions, it represents the best profile available at this time. Over this period, average gross revenue per vessel ranged from approximately $71,000 to approximately $81,000. The highest gross revenue per vessel from all commercial harvesting activities did not exceed $1.0 million. For the Gulf EEZ, as of March 26, 2007, a moratorium permit is required to fish for shrimp. Based on the number of permits issued and number of applications being processed as of November 8, 2007, approximately 2,000 vessels are expected to be issued moratorium permits. An evaluation of revenue distribution within the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fleet by vessel size indicates substantial differences in yearly average revenues between large (at least 60 ft (18.3 m) in length) and small vessels. For the large vessel group, average annual revenues per vessel in 2004 was approximately $140,000, while the comparable value for small vessels was approximately $27,000. Across all vessels, the average annual gross revenue per vessel was approximately $110,000. Maximum yearly gross revenue reported by a qualifying vessel was approximately $1,046,000. On average, small vessels are also smaller in regards to most of their physical attributes (e.g., they use smaller crews, fewer and smaller nets, have less engine horsepower and fuel capacity). Small vessels are also older on average. Large vessels tend to be steel-hulled, whereas fiberglass hulls are most prominent among small vessels, though steel and wood hulls are also common. Nearly two-thirds of large vessels have freezing capabilities while few small vessels have such equipment. Small vessels still rely on ice for refrigeration and storage, though more than one-third of large vessels also rely on ice. Some vessels are so small that they rely on live wells for storage. An important difference between large and small Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp vessels is with respect to their dependency on the food shrimp fishery. The percentage of revenues arising from food shrimp landings is approximately 81 percent for large vessels, but only approximately 58 percent for small vessels. Thus, on average, large vessels are more dependent than their smaller counterparts on the food shrimp fishery. However, dependency on food shrimp is more variable within the small vessel sector than the large vessel sector. Many small vessels are quite dependent on food shrimp landings, while others illustrate little if any dependency. Finally, according to recent projections, on average, both small and large Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp vessels are experiencing significant economic losses, ranging from a -27 percent rate of return (net revenues or total fixed and variable costs) in the small vessel sector to a -36 percent rate of return in the large vessel sector (-33 percent on average for the fishery as a whole). The Small Business Administration
(SBA)defines a small organization as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation. This definition includes private educational institutions. The SBA also defines a small governmental jurisdiction as the government of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population less than 50,000. Finally, the SBA defines a small business in the commercial fishing activity as an entity that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has average annual total receipts not in excess of $4.0 million annually (NAICS codes 114111 and 114112, finfish and shellfish fishing). While the identity of entities that might pursue BRD testing cannot be determined with any certainty, based on past applicants, BRD testing is expected to be undertaken by NMFS, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Texas A&M University, the University of Georgia, the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc., other institutions, and owners of shrimp vessels. The state agencies are extensions of the respective state governments and, as such, clearly exceed the SBA population thresholds for small government entities. Similarly, both Texas A&M University and the University of Georgia are, as public universities, extensions of the respective state government educational systems, with staff being state employees, and, therefore, are similarly classified as large entities. Any private college or university, or non-profit organization that might apply for the BRD testing process is determined for the purpose of this analysis to be a small entity because private educational institutions and small non-profit organizations are generally understood to be smaller in terms of student population, staff, and operational budgets than public institutions. Based on the maximum annual revenue information for Gulf and South Atlantic commercial shrimping operations, vessels that may participate in the certification program are determined to be small business entities for the purpose of this analysis. It is unknown what portion of the estimated maximum 24 entities expected to apply for the certification program the first year, and fewer entities in subsequent years, would be small or large entities. All entities that receive the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery moratorium permit may be indirectly affected by the Gulf bycatch reduction criterion. Based on the maximum revenue information for Gulf EEZ commercial shrimping operations, all such vessels are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small business entities. The measures in this final rule do not affect the reporting or record-keeping requirements for shrimp vessels. This final rule only modifies the performance standards used in BRD certification and does not require new record or report preparation. The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The disproportionality question is: do the final regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities? Revision to the Manual is not expected to result in any direct or indirect adverse economic impacts on any affected entities since the reporting burden per applicant will not increase and the revisions, in and of themselves, will not cause any BRDs to be certified, provisionally certified, or decertified in future actions. Therefore, the issue of disproportionate impacts does not apply to this component of the final rule. Similarly, the change to the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery bycatch reduction criterion will not result in any direct adverse economic impacts on participants in the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery. However, the change in the bycatch reduction criterion is expected to generate indirect impacts on vessels in this fishery as a result of future certification, provisional certification, or decertification actions. All of these vessels have been determined to be small business entities. Thus, the issue of disproportionality does not apply to this component of the final rule. The certifications and provisional certifications will affect all vessels in the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery, as well as some vessels in the South Atlantic EEZ commercial shrimp fishery. Because all of these entities are determined to be small entities, the issue of disproportionality does not apply to this component of the final rule. The profitability question is: do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? The revision of the Manual will not directly affect fishery participation or harvest because it merely establishes procedures under which research and gear development may proceed. The bycatch reduction criterion for the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery will also not result in any direct adverse economic impacts on fishery participants because it is an administrative action. In addition to the Modified Jones-Davis BRD, the bycatch reduction criterion will allow for the extended funnel BRD to be provisionally certified for use in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery, and the composite panel BRD to be provisionally certified for use in the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ shrimp fisheries. However, these three BRDs are not presently certified for use by the fleet in the western Gulf, are more costly to purchase, and produce greater shrimp loss, on average, than the predominantly used fisheye-type BRDs. As such, no shrimp vessel owners are expected to switch from their current BRDs to these BRDs and no direct impacts are expected to result from the certification or provisional certification of these BRDs. The bycatch reduction criterion will, however, result in decertification of some currently used BRDs through subsequent regulatory action. Decertification of currently used BRDs will require the use of alternative certified or provisionally certified BRDs, with associated re-gearing costs. Among the BRDs currently in use, the maximum first-year re-gearing cost that could be incurred as a result of future decertification would be that associated with the Jones-Davis BRD, which is the most expensive remaining certified BRD, with an estimated cost of $425 per BRD, and would range from $2,550 per vessel for six BRDs to $4,250 per vessel for 10 BRDs, or between 2.3 percent and 3.8 percent of an average vessel's annual revenues. Lowest BRD replacement costs would be associated with a Modified Jones-Davis BRD, with an estimated cost of $300 per BRD, or $1,800 to $3,000 per vessel. Not all vessels would be required to acquire new BRDs, however, since not all current BRDs would be decertified, and the cheapest and currently most commonly used BRD, a fisheye-type BRD, could continue to be used in a different configuration. Although potential resultant shrimp loss would have to be figured into the decision, some fishermen may elect to retain but move the fisheye BRD as opposed to purchasing a different BRD, thus incurring no replacement costs for the gear itself. Since different BRDs produce different rates of shrimp retention, the decision of which BRD to use impacts gross revenues as well as operational and gear costs. Depending upon the BRD type currently used and the BRD type that might be selected as a replacement, reductions in average annual gross revenues of up to 3 percent have been projected for small vessels and 2 percent for many large vessels. Actual performance would vary, however, as individual vessels adopt the BRD that best meets their skill and fishing behavior in order to minimize costs and maximize revenues. All associated costs will directly accrue, however, only to a subsequent rule and not to the current action. This final rule will certify the Modified Jones-Davis BRD for the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ shrimp fisheries, provisionally certify the extended funnel BRD to be used in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery, and provisionally certify the composite panel BRD to be used in the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ shrimp fisheries. No direct adverse economic impacts will accrue to fishermen in either the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ shrimp fisheries as a result of these changes because no vessels will be required to use these BRDs. The certification or provisional certification of these BRDs will increase the options available to vessels. Use of these BRDs will be at the discretion of individual fishermen and adoption of the gear would only be expected to occur where it was expected to result in improved economic outcomes. Two alternatives, the final rule and the status quo, were considered for the action to modify the Manual. The status quo would continue overly restrictive and inflexible testing procedures and would not achieve NMFS' objectives. Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the change in the BRD bycatch reduction criterion. Two alternatives contained multiple options, resulting in eight effective alternatives. As previously discussed, changing the criterion is an administrative action and would not simultaneously decertify BRDs currently in use or require immediate replacement. Decertification, with attendant costs, however, will occur through subsequent action. The first alternative to the final bycatch reduction criterion, the status quo, is a specific juvenile red snapper fishing mortality reduction. Maintaining the status quo will result in the decertification of all currently certified BRDs except the Jones-Davis BRD for use in the Gulf. Current data indicate these BRDs do not meet the status quo bycatch reduction criterion. Decertification of these BRDs under the status quo would induce greater industry-wide replacement costs than the bycatch reduction criterion of this final rule because the final rule will allow more BRD options than the single Jones-Davis BRD. The second alternative to the final bycatch reduction criterion would continue to base the bycatch reduction target on juvenile red snapper, similar to the status quo, but would consider three different minimum thresholds in catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE). The two lower minimum thresholds, 12 percent and 20 percent reductions in juvenile red snapper CPUE, would be expected to allow continued use of the fisheye BRD, resulting in no direct or indirect adverse economic impacts. Neither threshold, however, would meet the objective of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that bycatch be reduced to the extent practicable. The final rule alternative has been identified to improve overall finfish bycatch reduction including juvenile red snapper at rates higher than specified by these alternatives. The highest red snapper bycatch reduction minimum threshold, a 30 percent reduction in juvenile red snapper CPUE, would be expected to result in the same effects as the status quo, because it has not been demonstrated this goal is achievable, resulting in greater indirect adverse economic impacts than the bycatch reduction criterion of this final rule. The third alternative to the final bycatch reduction criterion would base the bycatch reduction criterion on all finfish species and considered four minimum thresholds, ranging from 10 to 40 percent. The final rule will establish a 30-percent finfish bycatch reduction minimum threshold. The two lower finfish bycatch reduction minimum thresholds, 10 percent and 20 percent, would be expected to allow continued use of fisheye BRDs, resulting in no direct or indirect adverse economic impacts. However, neither threshold would meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement of achieving bycatch reduction to the extent practicable because several available BRDs are already achieving a 30-percent reduction in finfish bycatch. The highest finfish bycatch reduction minimum threshold, 40 percent, would not be expected to result in any direct adverse economic impacts but would be expected to result in indirect increased gear costs equal to those of the status quo, resulting in greater indirect adverse economic impacts than the bycatch reduction criterion of this final rule. This alternative would also set an excessive standard that few BRD designs could achieve. Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare an FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit holders in the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp fisheries. This final rule contains approved collection-of-information requirements--namely, the BRD certification process, consisting of applications for pre- certification or certification of a new BRD, pre-certification adjusting, the testing itself, the submission of the test results, application for observer position, and references for observers, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These collection-of-information requirements have been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0345. The public reporting burden for this collection of information which includes the application, pre-certification phase, testing, and submission of results, is estimated to average 222 hours per test. The public reporting burden for applying for an observer position will average 1 hour per response, and the burden for obtaining references will average 1 hour per response. The collection consists of an Application Form, Vessel Information Form, Gear Specification Form, TED/BRD Specification Form, Station Sheet Form, Species Characterization Form, Length Frequency Form, and Condition and Fate Form. The average response time for each of these forms is 20 minutes, except for the Species Characterization Form which has a 2.8-hour response time and the Application Form which has a 2.3-hour response time. In addition, 4 hours will be needed to prepare the final report. These burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES ). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: February 7, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows: PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 622.41, paragraph
(h)is removed and reserved and paragraph
(g)is revised to read as follows: § 622.41 Species specific limitations.
(g)*BRD requirement for Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp* . On a shrimp trawler in the Gulf EEZ or South Atlantic EEZ, each net that is rigged for fishing must have a BRD installed that is listed in paragraph (g)(2) of this section and is certified or provisionally certified for the area in which the shrimp trawler is located, unless exempted as specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(iv)of this section. A trawl net is rigged for fishing if it is in the water, or if it is shackled, tied, or otherwise connected to a sled, door, or other device that spreads the net, or to a tow rope, cable, pole, or extension, either on board or attached to a shrimp trawler.
(1)*Exemptions from BRD requirement* —(i) *Royal red shrimp exemption* . A shrimp trawler is exempt from the requirement to have a certified or provisionally certified BRD installed in each net provided that at least 90 percent (by weight) of all shrimp on board or offloaded from such trawler are royal red shrimp.
(ii)*Try net exemption* . A shrimp trawler is exempt from the requirement to have a certified or provisionally certified BRD installed in a single try net with a headrope length of 16 ft (4.9 m) or less provided the single try net is either placed immediately in front of another net or is not connected to another net.
(iii)*Roller trawl exemption* . A shrimp trawler is exempt from the requirement to have a certified or provisionally certified BRD installed in up to two rigid-frame roller trawls that are 16 ft (4.9 m) or less in length used or possessed on board. A rigid-frame roller trawl is a trawl that has a mouth formed by a rigid frame and a grid of rigid vertical bars; has rollers on the lower horizontal part of the frame to allow the trawl to roll over the bottom and any obstruction while being towed; and has no doors, boards, or similar devices attached to keep the mouth of the trawl open.
(iv)*BRD certification testing exemption* . A shrimp trawler that is authorized by the RA to participate in the pre-certification testing phase or to test a BRD in the EEZ for possible certification, has such written authorization on board, and is conducting such test in accordance with the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual” is granted a limited exemption from the BRD requirement specified in this paragraph (g). The exemption from the BRD requirement is limited to those trawls that are being used in the certification trials. All other trawls rigged for fishing must be equipped with certified or provisionally certified BRDs.
(2)*Procedures for certification and decertification of BRDs* . The process for the certification of BRDs consists of two phases--an optional pre-certification phase and a required certification phase. The RA may also provisionally certify a BRD.
(i)*Pre-certification* . The pre-certification phase allows a person to test and evaluate a new BRD design for up to 60 days without being subject to the observer requirements and rigorous testing requirements specified for certification testing in the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual.”
(A)A person who wants to conduct pre-certification phase testing must submit an application to the RA, as specified in the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual.” The “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual”, which is available from the RA, upon request, contains the application forms.
(B)After reviewing the application, the RA will determine whether to issue a letter of authorization
(LOA)to conduct pre-certification trials upon the vessel specified in the application. If the RA authorizes pre-certification, the RA's LOA must be on board the vessel during any trip involving the BRD testing.
(ii)*Certification* . A person who proposes a BRD for certification for use in the Gulf EEZ or South Atlantic EEZ must submit an application to test such BRD, conduct the testing, and submit the results of the test in accordance with the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual.” The RA will issue a LOA to conduct certification trials upon the vessel specified in the application if the RA finds that: The operation plan submitted with the application meets the requirements of the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual"; the observer identified in the application is qualified; and the results of any pre-certification trials conducted have been reviewed and deemed to indicate a reasonable scientific basis for conducting certification testing. If authorization to conduct certification trials is denied, the RA will provide a letter of explanation to the applicant, together with relevant recommendations to address the deficiencies resulting in the denial. To be certified for use in the fishery, the BRD candidate must successfully demonstrate a 30 percent reduction in total weight of finfish bycatch. In addition, the BRD candidate must satisfy the following conditions: There is at least a 50-percent probability the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate meets the bycatch reduction criterion and there is no more than a 10-percent probability the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion. If a BRD meets both conditions, consistent with the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual”, NMFS, through appropriate rulemaking procedures, will add the BRD to the list of certified BRDs in paragraph (g)(3) of this section; and provide the specifications for the newly certified BRD, including any special conditions deemed appropriate based on the certification testing results.
(iii)*Provisional certification* . Based on data provided consistent with the “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual”, the RA may provisionally certify a BRD if there is at least a 50-percent probability the true reduction rate of the BRD is no more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion, i.e. 25 percent reduction in total weight of finfish bycatch. Through appropriate rulemaking procedures, NMFS will add the BRD to the list of provisionally certified BRDs in paragraph (g)(3) of this section; and provide the specifications for the BRD, including any special conditions deemed appropriate based on the certification testing results. A provisional certification is effective for 2 years from the date of publication of the notification in the **Federal Register** announcing the provisional certification.
(iv)*Decertification* . The RA will decertify a BRD if NMFS determines the BRD does not meet the requirements for certification or provisional certification. Before determining whether to decertify a BRD, the RA will notify the appropriate Fishery Management Council in writing, and the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the advisability of any proposed decertification. The RA will consider any comments from the Council and public, and if the RA elects to decertify the BRD, the RA will proceed with decertification via appropriate rulemaking.
(3)*Certified and provisionally certified BRDs —*
(i)*Certified BRDS* . The following BRDs are certified for use in the Gulf EEZ and South Atlantic EEZ unless indicated otherwise. Specifications of these certified BRDs are contained in Appendix D to this part.
(A)Fisheye.
(B)Gulf fisheye.
(C)Jones-Davis.
(D)Modified Jones-Davis.
(E)Expanded mesh.
(F)Extended funnel -South Atlantic EEZ only.
(ii)*Provisionally certified BRDs* . The following BRDs are provisionally certified for use in the areas and for the time periods indicated. Specifications of these provisionally certified BRDs are contained in Appendix D to this part.
(A)Extended funnel- Gulf EEZ only; through February 16, 2010.
(B)Composite panel -Gulf EEZ and South Atlantic EEZ; through February 16, 2010. 3. In Appendix D to part 622, sections F and G are added to read as follows: Appendix D to Part 622—Specifications for Certified BRDs F. *Modified Jones-Davis.* 1. *Description* . The Modified Jones-Davis BRD is a variation to the alternative funnel construction method of the Jones-Davis BRD except the funnel is assembled by using depth-stretched and heat-set polyethylene webbing instead of the flaps formed from the extension webbing. In addition, no hoops are used to hold the BRD open. 2. *Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements* . The Modified Jones-Davis BRD must contain all of the following.
(a)*Webbing extension* . The webbing extension must be constructed from a single rectangular piece of 1 5/8-inch (4.1-cm) stretch mesh number 30 nylon with dimensions of 39 1/2 meshes by 150 meshes. A tube is formed from the extension webbing by sewing the 39 1/2 -mesh-sides together.
(b)*Funnel* . The funnel must be constructed from two sections of 1 5/8-inch (4.1-cm) heat-set and depth-stretched polypropylene or polyethylene webbing. The two side sections must be rectangular in shape, 25 meshes on the leading edge by 21 meshes deep. The 25-mesh leading edge of each polyethylene webbing section must be sewn evenly two meshes in from the front of the extension webbing starting 25 meshes from the top center on each side. The 21-mesh edge must be sewn to the extension webbing on a 9-bar and 1-mesh angle in the top and bottom, forming a V-shape funnel.
(c)*Cutting the escape opening* . The leading edge of the escape openings must be located within 18 inches (45.7 cm) of the posterior edge of the turtle excluder device
(TED)grid. The area of the escape opening must total at least 635 in2 (4,097 cm2). Two escape openings, 6 meshes wide by 12 meshes deep, must be cut 4 meshes apart in the extension webbing, starting at the top center extension seam, 7 meshes back from the leading edge, and 30 meshes to the left and to the right (total of four openings). The four escape openings must be double selvaged for strength.
(d)*Cone fish deflector* . The cone fish deflector is constructed of 2 pieces of 1 5/8-inch (4.1-cm) polypropylene or polyethylene webbing, 40 meshes wide by 20 meshes in length and cut on the bar on each side forming a triangle. Starting at the apex of the two triangles, the two pieces must be sewn together to form a cone of webbing. The apex of the cone fish deflector must be positioned within 12 inches (30.5 cm) of the posterior edge of the funnel.
(e)*11-inch (27.9-cm) cable hoop for cone deflector* . A single hoop must be constructed of 5/16-inch (0.79-cm) or 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) cable 34 1/2 inches (87.6 cm) in length. The ends must be joined by a 3-inch (7.6-cm) piece of 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) aluminum pipe pressed together with a 1/4-inch (0.64-cm) die. The hoop must be inserted in the webbing cone, attached 10 meshes from the apex and laced all the way around with heavy twine.
(f)*Installation of the cone in the extension* . The apex of the cone must be installed in the extension within 12 inches (30.5 cm) behind the back edge of the funnel and attached in four places. The midpoint of a piece of number 60 twine (or at least 4-mesh wide strip of number 21 or heavier webbing) 3 ft (1.22 m) in length must be attached to the apex of the cone. This piece of twine or webbing must be attached within 5 meshes of the aft edge of the funnel at the center of each of its sides. Two 12-inch (30.5-cm) pieces of number 60 (or heavier) twine must be attached to the top and bottom of the 11-inch (27.9-cm) cone hoop. The opposite ends of these two pieces of twine must be attached to the top and bottom center of the extension webbing to keep the cone from inverting into the funnel. *G. Composite Panel.* 1. *Description* . The Composite Panel BRD is a variation to the alternative funnel construction method of the Jones-Davis BRD except the funnel is assembled by using depth-stretched and heat-set polyethylene webbing with square mesh panels on the inside instead of the flaps formed from the extension webbing. In addition, no hoops are used to hold the BRD open. 2. *Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements* . The Composite Panel BRD must contain all of the following:
(a)*Webbing extension* . The webbing extension must be constructed from a single rectangular piece of 1 1/2 -inch to 1 5/8-inch (3.8-cm to 4.1-cm) stretch mesh number 30 nylon with dimensions of 24 1/2 meshes by 150 to 160 meshes. A tube is formed from the extension webbing piece by sewing the 24 1/2 -mesh sides together. The leading edge of the webbing extension must be attached no more than 4 meshes from the posterior edge of the TED grid.
(b)*Funnel* . The V-shaped funnel consists of two webbing panels attached to the extension along the leading edge of the panels. The top and bottom edges of the panels are sewn diagonally across the extension toward the center to form the funnel. The panels are 2-ply in design, each with an inner layer of 1 1/2 -inch to 1 5/8-inch (3.8-cm to 4.1-cm) heat-set and depth-stretched polyethylene webbing and an outer layer constructed of 2-inch (5.1-cm) square mesh webbing (1-inch bar). The inner webbing layer must be rectangular in shape, 36 meshes on the leading edge by 20 meshes deep. The 36-mesh leading edges of the polyethylene webbing should be sewn evenly to 24 meshes of the extension webbing 1 1/2 meshes from and parallel to the leading edge of the extension starting 12 meshes up from the bottom center on each side. Alternately sew 2 meshes of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing then 1 mesh of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing toward the top. The bottom 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly to the extension webbing on a 2 bar 1 mesh angle toward the bottom back center forming a v-shape in the bottom of the extension webbing. The top 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly along the bars of the extension webbing toward the top back center. The square mesh layers must be rectangular in shape and constructed of 2-inch (5.1-cm) webbing that is 18 bars or squares on the leading edge. The depth of the square mesh layer must be no more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) less than the 20 mesh side of the inner polyethylene layer when stretched taught. The 18 bar leading edge of each square mesh layer must be sewn evenly 1 bar to 2 meshes of the 36-mesh leading edge of the polyethylene section and the sides are sewn evenly (in length) to the 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene webbing. This will form a v-shape funnel using the top of the extension webbing as the top of the funnel and the bottom of the extension webbing as the bottom of the funnel.
(c)*Cutting the escape opening* . There are two escape openings on each side of the funnel. The leading edge of the escape openings must be located on the same row of meshes in the extension webbing as the leading edge of the composite panels. The lower openings are formed by starting at the first attachment point of the composite panels and cutting 9 meshes in the extension webbing on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees and cut 15 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. At this point turn and cut 18 bars toward the bottom front of the extension webbing. Finish the escape opening by cutting 6 points toward the original starting point. The top escape openings start 5 meshes above and mirror the lower openings. Starting at the leading edge of the composite panel and 5 meshes above the lower escape opening, cut 9 meshes in the extension on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees, and cut 6 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. Then cut 18 bars toward the bottom back of the extension. To complete the escape opening, cut 15 points forward toward the original starting point. The area of each escape opening must total at least 212 in 2 (1,368 cm 2 ). The four escape openings must be double selvaged for strength. Note: The “Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual” is published, excluding the Manual's appendices, as an appendix to this document. See the contact under ADDRESSES to obtain a complete Manual. The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appendix—Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual Definitions *Bycatch reduction criterion* is the standard by which a BRD candidate will be evaluated. To be certified for use by the shrimp fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the southeastern United States (North Carolina through Texas), the BRD candidate must demonstrate a successful reduction of total finfish bycatch by at least 30 percent by weight. *Bycatch reduction device (BRD)* is any gear or trawl modification designed to allow finfish to escape from a shrimp trawl. *BRD candidate* is a BRD to be tested for certification for use in the commercial shrimp fishery of southeastern United States. *Certified BRD* is a BRD that has been tested according to the procedure outlined herein and has been determined by the RA as having met the bycatch reduction criterion. *Control trawl* means a trawl that is not equipped with a BRD during the evaluation. *Evaluation and oversight personnel* means scientists, observers, and other technical personnel who, by reason of their occupation or scientific expertise or training, are approved by the RA as qualified to evaluate and review the application and testing process. *Experimental trawl* means the trawl that is equipped with the BRD candidate during an evaluation. *Net or side bias* means when the net(s) being fished on one side of the vessel demonstrate a different catch rate (fishing efficiency) than the net(s) being fished on the other side of the vessel during paired-net tests. *Observer* means a person on the list maintained by the RA of individuals qualified (see Appendix H) to supervise and monitor a BRD certification test. *Paired-net test* means a tow during certification trials where a control net and an experimental net are fished simultaneously, and the catches and catch rates between the nets are compared. *Provisional Certification Criterion* means a secondary benchmark which would allow a BRD candidate to be used for a time-limited period in the southeastern shrimp fishery. To meet the criterion, the BRD candidate must demonstrate a successful reduction of total finfish bycatch by at least 25 percent by weight. *Provisionally certified BRD* means a BRD that has been tested according to the procedure outlined herein and has been determined by the RA as having met the provisional certification criterion. A BRD meeting the provisional certification criterion would be certified by the RA for a period of 2 years. *Regional Administrator (RA)* means the Southeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service. *Required measurements* refers to the quantification of gear characteristics such as the dimensions and configuration of the trawl, the BRD candidate, the doors, or the location of the BRD in relation to other parts of the trawl gear that are used to assess the performance of the BRD candidate. *Sample size* means the number of successful tows (a minimum of 30 tows per test are required). *Shrimp trawler* means any vessel that is equipped with one or more trawl nets whose on-board or landed catch of shrimp is more than 1 percent, by weight, of all fish comprising its on-board or landed catch. *Successful tow* means that the control and experimental trawl were fished in accordance with the requirements set forth herein and the terms and conditions of the letter of authorization, and there is no indication problematic events, such as those listed in Appendix D-5, occurred during the tow to impact or influence the fishing efficiency (catch) of one or both nets. *Tow time* means the total time (hours and minutes) an individual trawl was fished (i.e., the time interval beginning when the winch is locked after deploying the net overboard, and ending when retrieval of the net is initiated). *Trawl* means a net and associated gear and rigging used to catch shrimp. The terms trawl and net are used interchangeably throughout this Manual. *Try net* means a separate net pulled for brief periods by a shrimp trawler to test for shrimp concentrations or determine fishing conditions (e.g., presence of absence of bottom debris, jellyfish, bycatch, and seagrasses). *Tuning a net* means adjusting the trawl and its components to minimize or eliminate any net or side bias that exists between the two nets that will be used as the control and experimental trawls during the certification test. I. Introduction This Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual (Manual) establishes a standardized process for evaluating the ability of bycatch reduction device
(BRD)candidates to meet the established bycatch reduction criterion, and be certified for use in the EEZ by the southeastern shrimp fishery. BRDs are required for use in shrimp trawls fished shoreward of the 100-fathom (183-meter) depth contour in the Gulf of Mexico, and within the EEZ of the South Atlantic region. Various BRD requirements also exist in state waters in the South Atlantic and off Florida and Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. Persons wishing to conduct BRD candidate evaluations exclusively in state waters do not need to apply to NMFS for authorization to conduct these tests, but should contact the appropriate state officials for authorizations. However, for data collected in such evaluations to be considered by NMFS for certification, the operations plan and data collection procedures must meet the criteria established in this Manual. II. BRD Candidate Evaluations A. Application Persons interested in evaluating the efficiency of a BRD candidate must apply for, receive, and have on board the vessel during the evaluation, a Letter of Authorization
(LOA)from the Regional Administrator (RA). To receive an LOA, the applicant must submit the following documentation to the RA:
(1)a completed application form (Appendix A);
(2)a brief statement of the purpose and goal of the activity for which the LOA is requested;
(3)an operations plan (see Section C below) describing the scope, duration, dates, and location of the test, and methods that will be used to conduct the test;
(4)an 8.5- inch x 11-inch (21.6-cm x 27.9-cm) diagram drawn to scale of the BRD design;
(5)an 8.5-inch x 11-inch (21.6-cm x 27.9-cm) diagram drawn to scale of the BRD in the shrimp trawl;
(6)a description of how the BRD is supposed to work;
(7)a copy of the testing vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or its state registration; and
(8)a copy of the testing vessel's Federal commercial shrimp vessel permit. An applicant requesting an LOA to test an unapproved turtle excluder device
(TED)as a BRD (including modifications to a TED that would enhance finfish exclusion) must first apply for and obtain from the RA an experimental TED authorization pursuant to 50 CFR 223.207(e)(2). Applicants should contact the Protected Resources Division of NMFS' Southeast Regional Office for further information. The LOA applicant must include a copy of that authorization with the application. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant along with a letter from the RA indicating what actions the applicant may take to make the application complete. There is no cost to the applicant for the RA's administrative expenses such as reviewing applications, issuing LOAs, evaluating test results, or certifying BRDs. However, all other costs associated with the actual testing activities are the responsibility of the applicant, or any associated sponsor. If an application for an LOA is denied, the RA will provide a letter of explanation to the applicant, together with relevant recommendations to address the deficiencies that resulted in the denial. B. Allowable Activities Issuance of an LOA to test a BRD candidate in the South Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico allows the applicant to remove or disable the existing certified BRD in one outboard net (to create a control net), and to place the BRD candidate in another outboard net in lieu of a certified BRD (to create an experimental net). All other trawls under tow during the test must have a certified BRD, unless these nets are specifically exempted in the LOA. All trawls under tow during the test must have an approved TED unless operating under an authorization issued pursuant to 50 CFR 223.207(e)(2), whereby the test is being conducted on an experimental TED. The LOA, and experimental TED authorization if applicable, must be on board the vessel while the test is being conducted. The term of the LOA will be 60 days; should circumstances require a longer test period, the applicant may apply to the RA for a 60-day extension. C. Operations Plan An operations plan should be submitted with the application describing a method to compare the catches of shrimp and fish in a control net (net without a BRD candidate installed) to the catches of the same species in an experimental net (a net configured identically to the control net but also equipped with the BRD candidate). The applicant may choose to conduct a pre-certification test of a prototype BRD candidate. A pre-certification test would be conducted when the intent is to assess the preliminary effectiveness of a prototype BRD candidate under field conditions, and to make modifications to the prototype BRD candidate during the field test. For pre-certification testing, the operations plan must include only a description of the scope, duration, dates, and location of the test, along with a description of methods that will be used to conduct the test. No observer is required for a pre-certification test, but the applicant may choose to use an observer to maintain a written record of the test. The applicant will maintain a written record for both the control and experimental net during each tow. Mandatory data collection is limited to the weight of the shrimp catch and the weight of the total finfish catch in each test net during each tow. These data must be submitted to NMFS at the conclusion of the test. Although not required, the applicant may wish to incorporate some or all the certification test requirements listed below. For a BRD candidate to be considered for certification, the operations plan must be more detailed and address the following topics:
(1)The primary assumption in assessing the bycatch reduction efficiency of the BRD candidate during paired net tests is that the inclusion of the BRD candidate in the experimental net is the only factor causing a difference in catch from the control net. Therefore, the nets to be used in the tests must be calibrated (tuned) to minimize, to the extent practicable, any net or side bias in catch efficiency prior to beginning a test series, and tuned again after any gear modification or change. Additional information on tuning shrimp trawls to minimize bias is available from the Harvesting Technology Branch, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facility, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS 39568 1207; phone
(601)762 4591.
(2)A standard tow time for a proposed evaluation should be defined. Tow times must be representative of the tow times used by commercial shrimp trawlers. The applicant should indicate what alternatives will be considered should the proposed tow time need adjustment once the test begins.
(3)A minimum sample size of 30 successful tows using a specific BRD candidate design is required for the statistical analysis described in Section F. No alterations of the BRD candidate design are allowed during a specific test series. If the BRD candidate design is altered, a new test series must be started. If a gear change (i.e., changing nets, doors, or rigging) is required, the nets should be tuned again before proceeding with further tests to complete the 30-tow series. Minor repairs to the gear (e.g., sewing holes in the webbing; replacing a broken tickler chain with a new one of the same configuration) are not considered a gear change.
(4)For tests conducted on twin-rig vessels, biases that might result from the use of a try net should be reduced to the extent practicable. Total fishing times for a try net must be a consistent percentage of the total tow time during each tow made in the test.
(5)To incorporate any net or side bias that remains after the tuning tows (e.g., the effect of a try net), or to accommodate for bias that develops between the control and experimental nets during the test, the operations plan should outline a timetable ensuring that an equal number of successful tows are made with the BRD candidate employed in both the port and starboard nets.
(6)Mandatory data to be collected during a test includes:
(1)detailed gear specifications as set forth in Appendices B and C, and
(2)pertinent information concerning the location, duration and catch from individual tows as set forth in Appendices D and F.
(7)Following each paired tow, the catches from the control and experimental nets must be examined separately. This requires that the catch from each net be kept separate from each other, as well as from the catch taken in other nets fished during that tow. Mandatory data collections include recording the weight of the total catch of each test net (control and experimental nets), the catch of shrimp (i.e., brown, white, pink, rock, or other shrimp by species) in each test net, and the catch of total finfish in aggregate in each test net.
(8)When recording the detailed information on the species found in the catch, if the catch in a net does not fill one standard 1-bushel [ca. 10 gallon] (30 liters) polyethylene shrimp basket (ca. 70 lb) (31.8 kg), but the tow is otherwise considered successful, data must be collected on the entire catch of the net, and recorded as a “select” sample (see Appendices D and F), indicating that the values represent the total catch of the particular net. If the catch in a net exceeds 70 lb (31.8 kg), a well-mixed sample consisting of one standard 1-bushel [ca. 10 gallon] (30 liters) polyethylene shrimp basket must be taken from the total catch of the net. The total weight of the sample must be recorded, as well as the weights (and numbers as applicable) of the various species or species groups found within that sample. These sample values can then be extrapolated to estimate the quantity of those species or species groups found in the total catch of the particular net.
(9)Although not a criterion for certification, applicants testing BRD candidates are encouraged to collect additional information that may be pertinent to addressing bycatch issues in their respective regions. For example, in the western Gulf of Mexico applicants are especially encouraged to collect information on red snapper. If the applicant chooses to collect these data, the total (“select”) catch of the target species from each test net (not just from the sample) should be recorded along with lengths for as many individuals per net per tow as set forth in Appendices E and F. Additional information in regard to the catch can be recorded on forms such as Appendix G. The operations plan should address what the applicant will do should it become necessary to deviate from the primary procedures outlined in the operations plan. The plan should describe in detail what will be done to continue the test in a reasonable manner that is consistent with the primary procedures. For example, it may become necessary to alter the pre-selected tow time to adapt to local fishing conditions to successfully complete the test. Prior to issuing a LOA, the RA may consult with evaluation personnel to review the acceptability of these proposed alterations. D. Observer Requirements It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a qualified observer (see Appendix H) is on board the vessel during the certification tests. A list of qualified observers is available from the RA. Observers may include employees or individuals acting on behalf of NMFS, state fishery management agencies, universities, or private industry who meet the minimum requirements outlined in Appendix H. Any change in information or testing circumstances, such as replacement of the observer, must be reported to the RA within 30 days. Under 50 CFR 600.746, when any fishing vessel is required to carry an observer as part of a mandatory observer program under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, *et seq.* ), the owner or operator of the vessel must comply with guidelines, regulations, and conditions to ensure their vessel is adequate and safe to carry an observer, and to allow normal observer functions to collect information as described in this Manual. A vessel owner is deemed to meet this requirement if the vessel displays one of the following:
(i)a current Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination decal, issued within the last 2 years, that certifies compliance with regulations found in 33 CFR chapter I, and 46 CFR chapter I;
(ii)a certificate of compliance issued pursuant to 46 CFR 28.710; or
(iii)a valid certificate of inspection pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3311. The observer has the right to check for major safety items, and if those items are absent or unserviceable, the observer may choose not to sail with the vessel until those deficiencies are corrected. E. Reports A report on the BRD candidate test results must be submitted by the applicant or associated sponsor before the RA will consider the BRD for certification. The report must contain a comprehensive description of the tests, copies of all completed data forms used during the tests, and photographs, drawings, and similar material describing the BRD. The captain, vessel owner, or the applicant must sign and submit the cover form (Appendix I). The report must include a description and explanation of any unanticipated deviations from the operations plan which occurred during the test. These deviations must be described in sufficient detail to indicate the tests were continued in a reasonable manner consistent with the approved operations plan procedures. Applicants must provide information on the cost of materials, labor, and installation of the BRD candidate. In addition, any unique or special circumstances of the tests, such as special operational characteristics or fishing techniques which enhance the BRD's performance, should be described and documented as appropriate. F. Certification The RA will determine whether the required reports and supporting materials are sufficient to evaluate the BRD candidate's efficiency. The determination of sufficiency would be based on whether the applicant adhered to the prescribed testing procedure or provided adequate justification for any deviations from the procedure during the test. If the RA determines that the data are sufficient for evaluation, the BRD candidate will be evaluated to determine if it meets the bycatch reduction criterion. In making a decision, the RA may consult with evaluation and oversight personnel. Based on the data submitted for review, the RA will determine the effectiveness of the BRD candidate, using appropriate statistical procedures such as Bayesian analyses, to determine if the BRD candidate meets the following conditions:
(1)There is at least a 50-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate meets the bycatch reduction criterion (i.e., the BRD candidate demonstrates a best point estimate [sample mean] that meets the certification criterion); and
(2)There is no more than a 10-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion. To be certified for use in the fishery, the BRD candidate will have to satisfy both conditions. The first condition ensures that the observed reduction rate of the BRD candidate has an acceptable level of certainty that it meets the bycatch reduction criterion. The second condition ensures the BRD candidate demonstrates a reasonable degree of certainty that the observed reduction rate represents the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate. This determination ensures the operational use of the BRD candidate in the shrimp fishery will, on average, provide a level of bycatch reduction that meets the established bycatch reduction criterion. Interested parties may obtain details regarding the hypothesis testing procedure to be used by contacting the Harvesting Technology Branch, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facility, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS 39568 1207; phone
(228)762 4591. Following a favorable determination of the certification analysis, the RA will certify the BRD (with any appropriate conditions as indicated by test results) and add the BRD to the list of certified BRDs in the **Federal Register** through appropriate rulemaking procedures. In addition, based on the data provided, the RA may provisionally certify a BRD candidate through appropriate rulemaking procedures based on the following condition: There is at least a 50-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is no more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion (i.e., the BRD candidate demonstrates a best point estimate [sample mean] within 5 percentage points of the bycatch reduction criterion). A provisional certification will be effective for 2 years from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of a determination of provisional certification. This time period will allow additional wide scale industry evaluation of the BRD candidate, during which additional effort would be made to improve the efficiency of the BRD to meet the certification criterion. III. BRDs Not Certified and Resubmission Procedures The RA will advise the applicant, in writing, if a BRD is not certified. This notification will explain why the BRD was not certified and what the applicant may do to either modify the BRD or the testing procedures to improve the chances of having the BRD certified in the future. If certification was denied because of insufficient information, the RA will explain what information is lacking. The applicant must provide the additional information within 60 days from receipt of such notification. If the additional information is not provided within 60 days, the application will be deemed abandoned. If the RA subsequently certifies the BRD, the RA will announce the certification in the **Federal Register** . IV. Decertification of BRDs The RA will decertify a BRD whenever NMFS determines a BRD no longer satisfies the bycatch reduction criterion. Before determining whether to decertify a BRD, the RA will notify the appropriate Fishery Management Council in writing, and the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the advisability of any proposed decertification. The RA will consider any comments from the Council and public, and if the RA elects to proceed with decertification of the BRD, the RA will publish proposed and final rules in the **Federal Register** with a comment period of no less than 15 days on the proposed rule. A provisionally certified BRD is valid for use in the fishery for 2 years from the date of publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** . If no new data are submitted to indicate the efficiency of the BRD has been improved, the RA will remove the BRD from the list of provisionally certified BRDs. V. Interactions with Sea Turtles The following section is provided for informational purposes. Sea turtles are listed under the Endangered Species Act as either endangered or threatened. The following procedures apply to incidental take of sea turtles under 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1): “Any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities must be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water according to the following procedures:
(A)Sea turtles that are actively moving or determined to be dead (as described in paragraph (B)(4) below) must be released over the stern of the boat. In addition, they must be released only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels.
(B)Resuscitation must be attempted on sea turtles that are comatose or inactive by:
(1)Placing the turtle on its bottom shell (plastron) so that the turtle is right side up and elevating its hindquarters at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) for a period of 4 to 24 hours. The amount of elevation depends on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are needed for larger turtles. Periodically, rock the turtle gently left to right and right to left by holding the outer edge of the shell (carapace) and lifting one side about 3 inches (7.6 cm) then alternate to the other side. Gently touch the eye and pinch the tail (reflex test) periodically to see if there is a response.
(2)Sea turtles being resuscitated must be shaded and kept damp or moist but under no circumstance be placed into a container holding water. A water-soaked towel placed over the head, carapace, and flippers is the most effective method in keeping a turtle moist.
(3)Sea turtles that revive and become active must be released over the stern of the boat only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels. Sea turtles that fail to respond to the reflex test or fail to move within 4 hours (up to 24, if possible) must be returned to the water in the same manner as that for actively moving turtles.
(4)A turtle is determined to be dead if the muscles are stiff (rigor mortis) and/or the flesh has begun to rot; otherwise, the turtle is determined to be comatose or inactive and resuscitation attempts are necessary. Any sea turtle so taken must not be consumed, sold, landed, offloaded, transshipped, or kept below deck.” [FR Doc. E8-2679 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070213033-7033-01] RIN 0648-XF55 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Processors Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2008 Pacific cod total allowable catch
(TAC)allocated to catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 8, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The A season allowance of the 2008 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI is 27,979 metric tons
(mt)as established by the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007) and revision (72 FR 71802, December 19, 2007). See § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(4), § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(A)(2), § 679.20(c)(3)(iii), and § 679.20(c)(5). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that the A season allowance of the 2008 Pacific cod directed fishing allowance allocated to catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher processors using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 6, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by section 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 7, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-640 Filed 2-7-08; 3:10 pm]
Connectionstraces to 42
Traces to 42 documents
CFR
36 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 18 CFR 157
  • 15 USC 717-717w
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 21 CFR 510
  • 21 CFR 522
  • 21 CFR 520
  • 21 CFR 520.1720
  • 26 CFR 301
  • T.D. 9375
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 2
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 51.900-51
  • 40 CFR 80
  • 40 CFR 80.27
  • 531 U.S. 457
  • 195 F.3d 4
  • 472 F.3d 882
  • 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2)
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 81
  • 40 CFR 58
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 45 CFR 1611
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 50 CFR 223.207(e)(2)
  • 50 CFR 600.746
  • 46 CFR 28.710
  • 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1)
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
C.F.R.§ 21.29
C.F.R.§ 21.197
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 375.308
C.F.R.§ 522.1222
SCOTUS531 U.S. 457
F. App'x195 F.3d 4
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cites 78 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.