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 · 2008-03-12 · Food and Drug Administration, HHS · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule; technical amendment

30,893 words·~140 min read·/register/2008/03/12/08-1009

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 111 [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0152] (formerly Docket No. 1996N-0417) RIN 0910-AB88 Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements; Technical Amendment AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is correcting a final rule that appeared in the **Federal Register** of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34752). The final rule established current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP)requirements in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations for dietary supplements. The final rule was published with an inadvertent error in the codified section. This document corrects that error. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the agency's regulations. DATES: This rule is effective March 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vasilios H. Frankos, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1696. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34752), FDA established CGMP requirements in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations for dietary supplements. The preamble of that final rule discusses the requirements of § 111.27(b) (21 CFR 111.27(b)) for a person subject to the rule to calibrate instruments and controls used in manufacturing or testing a component or dietary supplement both before and after first use (72 FR 34752 at 34824). The provisions regarding calibration of such instruments and controls, both before and after first use, also appeared in both the preamble and codified sections of the proposed rule (proposed 21 CFR 111.25(b)) (68 FR 12157 at 12191 and 12255, March 13, 2003). Due to an inadvertent error, the codified section of the final rule omitted the word “and” between § 111.27(b)(1) and (b)(2) (72 FR 34752 at 34947). Consequently, it is less clear that calibration must be carried out both before and after first use, as intended. This document corrects that error, by inserting the word “and” at the end of § 111.27(b)(1) so that § 111.27(b)(1) and (b)(2) are read together as one requirement. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 111 Dietary foods, Drugs, Foods, Packaging and containers. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, PACKAGING, LABELING, OR HOLDING OPERATIONS FOR DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 371, 374, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 264. 2. Revise § 111.27(b)(1) to read as follows: § 111.27 What requirements apply to the equipment and utensils that you use? (b)(1) Before first use; and Dated: March 5, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-4870 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9386] RIN 1545-BE80 Abandonment of Stock or Other Securities AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations concerning the availability and character of a loss deduction under section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)for losses sustained from abandoned stock or other securities. The final regulations clarify the tax treatment of losses from abandoned securities, and affect any taxpayer claiming a deduction for a loss from abandoned securities after the date these regulations are published in the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These final regulations are effective on March 12, 2008. *Applicability Date:* For dates of applicability, see § 1.165-5(i)(2). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean M. Dwyer at
(202)622-5020 or Peter C. Meisel at
(202)622-7750 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1. On July 30, 2007, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-101001-05) in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 41468). The notice of proposed rulemaking clarified the treatment of abandoned stock or other securities under section 165 of the Code, specifically providing that a loss from an abandoned security is governed by section 165(g), and that the loss is only allowed if all rights in the security are permanently surrendered and relinquished for no consideration. The IRS received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested or held. The proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations by this Treasury decision. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded this final regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal authors of these final regulations are Sean M. Dwyer, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting), and Peter C. Meisel, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.165-5 is amended by: 1. Redesignating paragraph
(i)as paragraph (j). 2. Adding a new paragraph (i). The addition reads as follows: § 1.165-5 Worthless securities.
(i)*Abandonment of securities* —(1) *In general.* For purposes of section 165 and this section, a security that becomes wholly worthless includes a security described in paragraph
(a)of this section that is abandoned and otherwise satisfies the requirements for a deductible loss under section 165. If the abandoned security is a capital asset and is not described in section 165(g)(3) and paragraph
(d)of this section (concerning worthless securities of certain affiliated corporations), the resulting loss is treated as a loss from the sale or exchange, on the last day of the taxable year, of a capital asset. See section 165(g)(1) and paragraph
(c)of this section. To abandon a security, a taxpayer must permanently surrender and relinquish all rights in the security and receive no consideration in exchange for the security. For purposes of this section, all the facts and circumstances determine whether the transaction is properly characterized as an abandonment or other type of transaction, such as an actual sale or exchange, contribution to capital, dividend, or gift.
(2)*Effective/applicability date. This paragraph
(i)applies to any abandonment of stock or other securities after March 12, 2008.* Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 3, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-4862 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0076] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, ME, Casco Bay AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby establishes three special anchorage areas in Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property in Yarmouth, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-07-009), and are available for inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone
(617)223-8355, *e-mail: John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil* . Regulatory Information On May 24, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled “Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 29095). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose This rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by creating three special anchorage areas in Yarmouth, Maine:
(1)Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point Cousins Island Special Anchorage,
(2)Madeleine and Sandy Point Special Anchorage, and
(3)Drinkwater Point and Princes Point Special Anchorage, creating anchorage for approximately 350 vessels. The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage areas in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage areas contained herein with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments for the NPRM and no changes were made to this final rule. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Yarmouth, the changing needs of recreational, fishing, and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe navigation and protection of Yarmouth and the marine environment. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, at the address listed in ADDRESSES above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.5 by adding paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 110.5 Casco Bay, Maine.
(f)*Yarmouth Harbor and adjacent waters.*
(1)Anchorage A. All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point located at the northernmost point of Littlejohn Island at latitude 43°45′86″ N., longitude 70°06′95″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′78″ N., longitude 70°06′89″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′43″ N., longitude 70°07′38″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′28″ N., longitude 70°07′68″ W.; thence to latitude 43°44′95″ N., longitude 70°08′45″ W.; thence to latitude 43°44′99″ N., longitude 70°08′50″ W. DATUM: NAD 83.
(2)*Anchorage B.* All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point located Northeast of Birch Point on Cousins Island at latitude 43°45′27″ N., longitude 70°09′32″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′35″ N., longitude 70°09′50″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′63″ N., longitude 70°09′18″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′95″ N., longitude 70°08′98″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′99″ N., longitude 70°08′83″ W. DATUM: NAD 83.
(3)*Anchorage C.* All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point located South of Drinkwater Point in Yarmouth, Maine at latitude 43°46′42″ N., longitude 70°09′25″ W.; thence to latitude 43°46′35″ N., longitude 70°09′16″ W.; thence to latitude 43°46′07″ N., longitude 70°09′77″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′48″ N., longitude 70°10′40″ W.; thence to latitude 43°45′65″ N., longitude 70°10′40″ W. DATUM: NAD 83. Note to paragraph (f). An ordinance of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine requires the approval of the Yarmouth Harbor Master for the location and type of moorings placed in these special anchorage areas. All anchoring in the areas are under the supervision of the Yarmouth Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine. All moorings are to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit of the anchorage area. Dated: February 21, 2008. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4821 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0148] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Connecticut River, Old Lyme, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the Connecticut River, mile 3.4, at Old Lyme, Connecticut. Under this temporary deviation a two-hour advance notice will be required for bridge openings between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the following time periods: February 29, 2008 to March 5, 2008; March 7, 2008 to March 10, 2008; and March 14, 2008 to March 17, 2008. Notice may be given by calling the bridge on marine radio channel VHF 13, or by telephone at
(860)510-5622. Vessels that can pass under the draw without an opening may do so at all times. This deviation is necessary immediately to facilitate required bridge maintenance in order to prevent further disruption in train service and navigation. DATES: This deviation is effective from February 29, 2008 through March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the Connecticut River, mile 3.4, at Old Lyme, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205. The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled mechanical maintenance, miter rail replacement, at the bridge. Under this temporary deviation a two-hour advance notice for bridge openings will be required between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the following time periods: February 29, 2008 to March 5, 2008; March 7, 2008 to March 10, 2008, and March 14, 2008 to March 17, 2008. The advance notice may be given by calling the bridge on marine radio channel VHF 13, or by telephone at
(860)510-5622. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge 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: February 29, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4926 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0115] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved an additional temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. While construction continues, this added deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. beginning March 2, 2008 until and including May 30, 2008. DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. on March 2, 2008, until 2 p.m. on May 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(757)398-6222. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 25, 2008, we published a notice of temporary deviation from the regulations entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 4472). The Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation, co-owners of the drawbridge, requested an extension of the aforementioned temporary deviation with new dates in an effort to minimize the potential for major regional traffic impacts and consequences during bridge openings while construction continues. Bridge owners requested that the new drawbridge not be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Sunday, March 2, 2008 through Friday, May 30, 2008. The temporary deviation will only affect vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or greater. Furthermore, all affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to receive an opening of the new drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a). The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure period for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. 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: February 25, 2008. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4932 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0149] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Niantic River, Niantic, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic, Connecticut. Under this temporary deviation a two-hour advance notice will be required for bridge openings between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the following time periods: March 21, 2008 to March 24, 2008 and March 28, 2008 to March 31, 2008. Notice may be given by calling the bridge on marine radio channel VHF 13, or by telephone at
(860)510-5628. Vessels that can pass under the draw without an opening may do so at all times. This deviation is necessary immediately to facilitate required bridge maintenance in order to prevent further disruption in train service and navigation. DATES: This deviation is effective from March 21, 2008 through March 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 11 feet at mean high water and 14 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.215(a). The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled mechanical maintenance, miter rail replacement, at the bridge. Under this temporary deviation a two-hour advance notice for bridge openings will be required between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the following time periods: March 21, 2008 to March 24, 2008, and March 28, 2008 to March 31, 2008. The advance notice may be given by calling the bridge on marine radio channel VHF 13, or by telephone at
(860)510-5628. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge 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: February 29, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-4937 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0048] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), mile 49.8, near Houma, Lafourche Parish, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the SR 316 Blue Bayou Pontoon Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 49.8, near Houma, Lafourche Parish, LA. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This deviation will allow the draw of the bridge to open on signal except during the regular school year on Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. DATES: This deviation is effective from March 27, 2008, until April 28, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0048 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking USCG-2008-0048, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking USCG-2008-0048 in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Background and Purpose The Lafourche Parish Council has requested that a regulation be placed on the SR 316 Blue Bayou Pontoon Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), at mile 49.8, near Houma, LA. This bridge currently opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Due to a high volume of vehicular traffic on SR 316, and the length of time to open and close the SR 316 Blue Bayou Pontoon Bridge, a bridge opening can cause a substantial delay in transit time for school buses having to cross the bridge. To minimize the transit time of school children, Lafourche Parish requested closure periods around the scheduled school bus route times to allow the buses to cross the bridge without delay caused by a bridge opening. Currently, based on twelve months of bridge logs and a two week vehicular traffic count during the school year the 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. period has an average of 87 cars to 3.4 vessels, the 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. period has an average of 112 cars to 6.3 vessels, and the 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. period has an average of 140 cars to 3.2 vessels. Thus, a substantial delay can occur to the school buses that have to cross this bridge during their routes. The users of the waterway consist mostly of towboats and barges, fishing vessels, and some recreational vessels. All waterway users transiting through this area require the bridge to open since the bridge is a pontoon bridge with no vertical clearance in the closed to navigation position and there is no feasible alternate route. During this test deviation, a count of the delayed vessels during the closure periods will be taken to ensure a future regulation will not have a significant impact on navigation. This test deviation has been coordinated with the main commercial waterway user group that has vessels transiting in this area, and currently there is no expectation of any significant impacts on navigation. The deviation period will be from March 27, 2008 until April 28, 2008. During the deviation period, the draw shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, USCG-2008-0049, is being issued in conjunction with this Temporary Deviation to obtain public comments. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be open for public comment for two months from March 12, 2008 until May 12, 2008. The Coast Guard will evaluate public comments from this Temporary Deviation and the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is warranted. 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: February 21, 2008. David M. Frank, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4943 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0195] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transits within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to protect the SBX-1 from threats associated with vessels and persons approaching too close during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP). DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0195 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 and U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, 400 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-4398 between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at
(808)842-2600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On January 7, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 1133). We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once each year. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms. The Coast Guard's reaction to such transits thus far has been to await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action diminished the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposed a pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrived. This permanent SBX-1 security zone affords the public consistent regulation regarding the SBX-1 and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings currently necessary to protect each transit. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received one comment regarding this proposed rule through *www.regulations.gov* . The commenter wrote that the size of the security zone seems to be excessive, and that it may interfere with the transit of recreational boaters. This person suggested that those who approach the SBX-1 may be doing so just to get a better look at it. The commenter also asked whether the Coast Guard conducted a study to determine SBX-1's protection needs. *Coast Guard's Response:* While the zone is large, it is the same size as Naval vessel protective zones. That comparison determined the size of the zone; no further study was conducted for this particular vessel. The SBX-1's transits are infrequent, so the size of the security zone typically will not affect normal recreational boating traffic. We have considered reducing the zone but determined that reduction would present an unacceptable level of risk. Additionally, we have determined that the need to provide an adequate security buffer for the vessel outweighs the public's interest in a better view of it. Discussion of Rule This security zone is established permanently. It is automatically activated, meaning it is subject to enforcement, whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10). The security zone includes all waters extending 500 yards in all directions from the SBX-1, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. The zone becomes fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored, position-keeping, or moored, and it remains activated until the SBX-1 either departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP zone or enters the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by Executive Order 8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941). The COTP will notify the public of the enforcement of the zone through a broadcast notice to mariners. The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the zone while it is activated and enforced is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, is authorized to enforce the zone. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this security zone. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it is a security zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new § 165.1411 to read as follows: § 165.1411 Security zone; waters surrounding U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1, HI.
(a)*Location* . The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1. The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit and becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(b)*Regulations* . The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof.
(c)*Suspension of Enforcement* . The Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the SBX-1 is within the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675).
(d)*Informational notice* . The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
(e)*Authority to enforce* . Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this section.
(f)*Waiver* . The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
(g)*Penalties* . Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Dated: March 3, 2008. Barry A. Compagnoni, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu. [FR Doc. E8-4946 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 956 Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Postal Service is removing the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane M. Mego,
(703)812-1905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service is removing the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Disciplinary Action for Violations of Restrictions on Post-Employment Activity. These provisions have been superseded by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch issued by the Office of Government Ethics. This revision is a mandated change in the agency rules of procedure before the Judicial Officer and, therefore, it is appropriate for its adoption by the Postal Service to become effective immediately. PART 956—[REMOVED] Accordingly, and under the authority of 39 U.S.C. 204 and 401, the Postal Service removes and reserves 39 CFR part 956. Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-4869 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-2005-0036; FRL-8542-1] RIN 2060-AO89 Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources: Early Credit Technology Requirement Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise the February 26, 2007 mobile source air toxics rule's requirements that specify the benzene control technologies that qualify a refiner to generate early benzene credits. This action will allow another specific benzene control technology, benzene alkylation, in addition to the four operational or technological changes that the 2007 rule currently allows. This action also includes a general provision that allows a refiner to submit a request to EPA to approve other benzene-reducing operational changes or technologies for the purpose of generating early credits. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 12, 2008, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 11, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comment, 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-2005-0036, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)566-9744. • *Mail:* EPA-HQ-2005-0036, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334 West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2005-0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless 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 instructions on submitting comments, go to section 1.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *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, is not placed on the Internet and 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 Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, 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 Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Brunner, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734)214-4287; fax number:
(734)214-4816; e-mail address: *brunner.christine@epa.gov.* Alternative contact: Assessment and Standards Division Hotline, telephone number:
(734)214-4636; e-mail address: *asdinfo@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule? EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to adopt the provisions in this direct final rule if adverse comments are filed. We will not 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. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action may affect you if you produce gasoline. The following table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the regulations. Category NAICS 1 codes SIC 2 codes Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners. 1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 2 Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC)system code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To decide whether your organization might be affected by this action, you should carefully examine today's action and the existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.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. B. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • 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. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. *Docket Copying Costs.* You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. Outline of This Preamble I. Background II. Today's Action III. Environmental and Economic Impact IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority List of Subjects I. Background The Mobile Source Air Toxics rule (MSAT2), published on February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8428), requires that refiners and importers produce gasoline that has an annual average benzene content of 0.62 volume percent (vol%) or less, beginning in 2011. (See § 80.1230(a).) The rule also requires that no refiner or importer have an actual average gasoline benzene level greater than 1.3 volume percent. After achieving an actual annual average benzene level of 1.3 vol%, refiners and importers may use benzene credits to reduce their average benzene level to 0.62 vol%. Refiners may generate benzene credits for their own use or to sell to others, in two ways. Once the program begins in 2011, a refiner generates credits (known as standard credits) when its average annual gasoline benzene level is less than 0.62 vol%. Importers can also generate standard credits. Refiners may also generate credits prior to 2011. 1 These credits are called early credits. The final rule allowed for the generation of early benzene credits in any annual averaging period prior to 2011 (i.e., 2008, 2009, and 2010), as well as for the partial year period June 1-December 31, 2007. Early credits are generated on a refinery basis. In order to generate early credits, a refinery must meet several requirements: 1 Importers are not allowed to generate early credits because they do not have the ability to make the benzene reduction technology changes that would lower benzene levels in the gasoline pool.
(1)Establish a benzene baseline based on the average benzene level of the gasoline produced at the refinery during the two-year period 2004-05. (See § 80.1285.)
(2)Make operational changes or improvements in benzene control technology that will result in real benzene reductions. (See § 80.1275(d).)
(3)Achieve an annual average benzene level at least 10% lower than its baseline level. (See § 80.1275(a).) In § 80.1275(d)(1) of the MSAT2 final rule, we specified four types of operational changes and benzene control technology improvements that would allow a refinery to qualify for generating early credits if it implemented the changes after 2005 and if it also met the other related requirements. These operational changes and technology improvements are:
(1)Treating the heavy straight run naphtha entering the reformer using light naphtha splitting and/or isomerization.
(2)Treating the reformate stream exiting the reformer using benzene extraction or benzene saturation.
(3)Directing additional refinery streams to the reformer for treatment as described in
(1)and
(2)above.
(4)Directing reformate streams to other refineries with treatment capabilities as described in
(2)above. We included in this list all the strategies we thought would reduce benzene and be cost-effective. The provision was intended to not allow early credit generation solely by benzene reductions achieved through ethanol blending. A refinery needs to implement at least one of the listed improvements. The final rule did not provide a way for EPA to consider alternative means of reducing benzene, no matter how efficacious the alternative might be. Soon after the rule was finalized, it came to our attention that at least one refinery had plans to install benzene alkylation technology. Benzene alkylation is not one of the four operational or technological changes enumerated in the final rule. Although EPA regards benzene alkylation as a legitimate benzene reduction technology, we did not expect it to be used. (See the Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA420-R-07-002, February 2007), Chapter 6, Page 36.) II. Today's Action We published a Questions and Answers document related to the MSAT2 program on August 16, 2007. ( *http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420f07053.pdf* ) In that document, we specifically addressed benzene alkylation and indicated that benzene alkylation meets the intent of the technology requirement for early credits. As discussed in the preamble of the final rule, early credits are generated based on innovations in gasoline benzene control technology that result in real benzene reductions prior to the start of the program in 2011. (See 72 FR 8486.) The use of benzene alkylation directly results in lower gasoline benzene levels. Today's action revises § 80.1275(d)(1) to include benzene alkylation in the list of acceptable reduction operational and technological strategies. We have also included a general provision that would allow a refiner to petition EPA to use an operational or technological change that is not listed in the regulation for the purpose of generating early credits. The refiner would have to demonstrate that the benzene control technology improvement or operational change results in a net reduction in the refinery's average gasoline benzene level, exclusive of benzene reductions due simply to blending practices. The petition would have to be submitted to EPA prior to the start of the first averaging period in which the refinery plans to generate early credits. EPA expects it would act on such a petition before the end of that averaging period. The refiner would also have to provide additional information requested by EPA. The other requirements for generating early credits are unchanged. These include submitting a benzene baseline, reducing the refinery's baseline benzene level by at least 10% in a given averaging period, and not moving gasoline or blendstock streams between refineries for the purpose of generating early credits. (See 72 FR 8486.) III. Environmental and Economic Impact We believe there will be no negative environmental or economic impacts of today's action. This action will allow those companies that have alternative means or strategies for reducing gasoline benzene to request EPA approval to use them for the purpose of generating early benzene credits. Average gasoline benzene levels from such refiners will decrease faster and earlier than if they had not generated early credits, and such credits will help provide for a robust credit pool when the program starts in 2011. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action revises the February 26, 2007 mobile source air toxics rule's requirements that specify the benzene control technologies that qualify a refiner to generate early benzene credits. It allows another specific benzene control technology, benzene alkylation, to be used for the purpose of generating early credits, and allows a refiner to submit a request to EPA to approve other benzene-reducing operational changes or technologies for the purpose of generating early credits. This action is not expected to have an annual impact on the economy of more than $100 million, nor does it raise any novel legal or policy issues. This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because the amendments in this rule do not change the information collection requirements of the underlying rule. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule because this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A petroleum refining company with fewer than 1500 employees or a petroleum wholesaler or broker with fewer than 100 employees, based on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS);
(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. 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 potentially 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. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. 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 action simply modifies the original rule in a limited manner, and does not significantly change the original rule. Thus, today's final rule 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, because it applies only to parties that produce gasoline. 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. The rule amends existing regulatory provisions applicable only to producers of gasoline and does not alter State authority to regulate these entities. The amendments will impose no direct costs on State or local governments. 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 6, 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.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule amends existing regulatory provisions applicable only to producers of gasoline and will impose no direct costs on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. 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 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 rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. We believe there will be no negative environmental or economic impacts resulting from today's action compared to the February 26, 2007 rule this action modifies. 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(2). This final rule will be effective on May 12, 2008. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority The statutory authority for the fuels controls in today's final rule can be found in sections 202 and 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. Support for any procedural and enforcement-related aspects of the fuel controls in today's rule, including recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle fuel, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 6, 2008 Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is amended as set forth below: PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545 and 7601(a). 2. Section 80.1275 is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraph (d)(1)(v). b. By redesignating paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d)(3). c. By adding paragraph (d)(2). § 80.1275 How are early benzene credits generated?
(d)* * *
(1)* * *
(v)Providing for benzene alkylation. (2)(i) A refiner may petition EPA to approve, for purposes of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the use of operational changes and/or improvements in benzene control technology that are not listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to reduce gasoline benzene levels at a refinery.
(ii)The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section must be sent to: U.S. EPA, NVFEL-ASD, Attn: MSAT2 Early Credit Benzene Reduction Technology, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
(iii)The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section must show how the benzene control technology improvement or operational change results in a net reduction in the refinery's average gasoline benzene level, exclusive of benzene reductions due simply to blending practices.
(iv)The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section must be submitted to EPA prior to the start of the first averaging period in which the refinery plans to generate early credits.
(v)The refiner must provide additional information as requested by EPA.
(3)Has not included gasoline blendstock streams transferred to, from, or between refineries, except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section. [FR Doc. E8-4917 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0331; FRL-8351-7] Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of spiromesifen and its enol metabolite in or on bean, dry; bean, succulent; bean, edible podded; and cowpea, forage. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective March 12, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 12, 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-2007-0331. 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: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-3194; e-mail address: *brothers.shaja@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-2007-0331 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 May 12, 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-2007-0331 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 May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26375) (FRL-8128-1), 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 7E7195) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.607 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide spiromesifen, (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), in or on bean, edible, podded at 1.4 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.10 ppm; bean, dry at 0.02 ppm; cowpea, forage at 35 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.20 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.30 ppm; goat, fat at 0.20 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.30 ppm; hog, fat at 0.20 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.30 ppm; horse, fat at 0.20 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at0.30 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.20 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.30 ppm; and milk at 0.01 ppm. This notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer Crop Science, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *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 tolerance expressions for bean, edible, podded; cowpea, forage; milk, whole; milk, fat; in meat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep; in meat, byproducts, of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep; and in fat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. A tolerance for cowpea, hay was also included. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C. 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 tolerances for combined residues of spiromesifen on bean, dry at 0.02 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.10 ppm; bean, edible podded at 0.80 ppm; cowpea, forage at 30 ppm; cowpea, hay at 86 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.10 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at 0.10 ppm; goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; horse, fat at 0.10 ppm; horse, meat at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.10 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; and milk, fat at 0.20 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerances follow. 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. Spiromesifen shows low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It was neither an eye nor dermal irritant, but showed moderate potential as a contact sensitizer in a Magnusson and Kligman maximization assay. Acute dietary-exposure limits for all populations, including infants and children, were not necessary because an endpoint of concern attributable to a single exposure
(dose)was not identified from the oral toxicity studies. In addition, there are no developmental concerns based on rat and/or rabbit developmental toxicity studies. The rat two-generation reproduction study was selected for chronic dietary, as well as long-term dermal- and inhalation-exposure risk assessments. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rat the following effects were noted at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL): Significantly decreased spleen weight (absolute and relative in parental females and F1 males) and significantly decreased growing ovarian follicles in females. Spiromesifen shows no significant developmental or reproductive effects, is not likely to be carcinogenic based on bioassays in rat and mouse, and lacks in vivo and in vitro mutagenic effects. Spiromesifen is not a neurotoxic chemical based on results of acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spiromesifen 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 in the document entitled “Spiromesifen: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration on Beans;” pages 44-52 at *www.regulations.gov* . The referenced document is available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0331. 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 spiromesifen used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in the document entitled “Spiromesifen: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration on Beans;” pages 18-19; docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0331. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to spiromesifen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spiromesifen tolerances in (40 CFR 180.607). EPA assessed dietary exposures from spiromesifen 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 spiromesifen; 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, and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all commodities with existing and proposed tolerances except for the leafy-green and leafy- *Brassica* vegetable subgroups (4A and 5B). An additional metabolite, BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl, was observed in the metabolism studies of lettuce only. Since this metabolite's toxicity is expected to be comparable to the parent compound, it was included in the risk assessment for leafy crops (subgroups 4A and 5B), but not in the tolerance expression. To account for this additional toxicity exposure, the recommended tolerance level was multiplied by a correction factor of 1.3x. For all commodities, 100%CT as well as DEEM TM Version 7.81 default processing factors were used. iii. *Cancer* . Spiromesifen has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Therefore, a cancer dietary risk assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* .The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spiromesifen in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of spiromesifen. 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* . Parent spiromesifen is not likely to persist in the environment as it readily undergoes both biotic and abiotic degradation; however, its primary degradate BSN2060 is expected to persist. While parent spiromensifen strongly sorbs to sediment and is not likely to be mobile, its enol degradate does not sorb to sediment and is expected to leach into groundwater. Spiromesifen has limited solubility in water and is some cases has been reported to have a practical solubility limit of 40 to 50 μg/L. The pesticide degrades primarily through aerobic soil metabolism and hydrolysis; however, in clear shallow water it will readily undergo photolysis. Field studies indicate that spiromesifen readily dissipates with dissipation half lives ranging from 2 to 10 days. The compound is not likely to bioconcentrate appreciably given its relatively rapid degradation and depuration. Spiromesifen and BSN 2060-enol are the predominant residues in drinking water. BSN 2060-enol may account for 75% of the total acute exposure and for over 90% for chronic exposure. Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were generated for the total toxic residue which includes spiromesifen, the -enol and -carboxy metabolites, and unextracted material. The highest estimated surface water concentrations occurred with the NC sweet potato scenario. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentration
(EEC)of spiromesifen for chronic exposure is estimated to be 11 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water. The EEC for chronic exposure is estimated to be 28 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 28 ppb was used to access 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). Spiromesifen is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 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 spiromesifen and any other substances and spiromesifen 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 spiromesifen 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 Web site 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 of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to *in utero* and/or postnatal exposure to spiromesifen. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the two-generation reproduction study in rats, developmental toxicity to the offspring occurred at equivalent or higher doses than parental toxicity. 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 spiromesifen is complete. ii. There is no indication that spiromesifen 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 spiromesifen results in increased susceptibility in *in utero* 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%CT and tolerance-level residues or higher. Conservative ground and surface water modeling estimates were used. Residential exposure is not expected as spiromesifen will be registered for agricultural and greenhouse/ornamental uses only. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by spiromesifen. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and 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 MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for spiromesifen; therefore, acute exposure is not expected. 2. *Chronic risk.* Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to spiromesifen from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for the population group children 3-5 years old (the greatest exposure). There are no residential uses for spiromesifen that result in chronic residential exposure to spiromesifen. 3. *Short and intermediate-term risk* . Short and Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Spiromesifen is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Spiromesifen has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Spiromesifen is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 5. *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 spiromesifen residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology, high performance liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy (HPLC/MS/MS)/ Method 00631/M001, 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 No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs have been established for residues of spiromesifen and its metabolites. C. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions 1. *Bean, edible podded and cowpea, forage* . The tolerances were revised based on analysis with the Agency's tolerance spreadsheet in accordance with the Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data SOP. 2. *Cowpea, hay* . After reviewing the cowpea residue data, EPA determined an additional cowpea tolerance was necessary on cowpea hay. 3. *Livestock feed and milk* . Based on the dietary exposure levels and the residue data from an available ruminant feeding study, data indicate that a tolerance of 0.01 ppm is needed in milk, whole, 0.20 ppm in milk, fat, 0.02 ppm is needed for residues of spiromesifen in the meat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, 0.15 ppm in meat, byproducts, of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, and 0.10 in the fat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. Based on the transfer coefficients for livestock tissues and the relatively low dietary burden for swine of 0.04 ppm for spiromesifen, tolerances in hogs are not needed. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerances are established for combined residues of spiromesifen, (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), in or on bean, dry at 0.02 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.10 ppm; bean, edible podded at 0.80 ppm; cowpea, forage at 30 ppm; cowpea, hay at 86 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.10 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at 0.10 ppm; goat, meat at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; horse, fat at 0.10 ppm; horse, meat at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.15 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; milk, fat at 0.20 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.10 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.15 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: March 4, 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 180.607 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1), and by revising the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 180.607 Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General.*
(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million Bean, dry 0.02 Bean, edible podded 0.80 Bean, succulent 0.10 * * * * * Cowpea, forage 30 Cowpea, hay 86 * * * * *
(2)* * * Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.15 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts 0.15 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts 0.15 Milk 0.01 Milk, fat 0.20 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.15 [FR Doc. E8-4920 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0382; FRL-8541-5] Colorado: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate final rule. SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the federal program. Colorado has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under RCRA. EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. DATES: This final authorization will become effective on May 12, 2008, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by April 11, 2008. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the immediate final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0382, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: daly.carl@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(303)312-6341. • *Mail:* Send written comments to Carl Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-HW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Carl Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-HW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The public is advised to call in advance to verify the business hours. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0382. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, 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 federal web site, *http://www.regulations.gov,* 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 or 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.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at: EPA Region 8, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado; contact: Carl Daly, phone number
(303)312-6416, or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222-1530; contact: Randy Perila, phone number
(303)692-3364. The public is advised to call in advance to verify the business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202,
(303)312-6416, *daly.carl@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? We conclude that Colorado's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Colorado final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization applications. Colorado has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders, except in Indian Country, and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Colorado, including issuing permits, until Colorado is authorized to do so. C. What is the Effect of This Authorization Decision? This decision means that a facility in Colorado subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Colorado has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
(1)Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
(2)enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and,
(3)take enforcement actions regardless of whether Colorado has taken its own actions. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Colorado is being authorized by this action are already effective and are not changed by this action. D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before This Rule? EPA did not publish a proposal before this rule because we view this as a routine program change. We are providing an opportunity for the public to comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's **Federal Register** we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes. E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action? If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the **Federal Register** before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment, therefore, if you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the Colorado hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The **Federal Register** withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective and which part is being withdrawn. F. For What Has Colorado Previously Been Authorized? Colorado initially received final authorization on October 19, 1984, effective November 2, 1984 (49 FR 41036) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on October 24, 1986, effective November 7, 1986 (51 FR 37729); May 15, 1989, effective July 14, 1989 (54 FR 20847); May 10, 1991, effective July 9, 1991 (56 FR 21601); April 7, 1994, effective June 6, 1994 (59 FR 16568); and November 14, 2003, effective January 13, 2004 (68 FR 64550). G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With This Action? Colorado submitted complete program revision applications on December 31, 2002, September 23, 2003, and December 23, 2003 seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Some of the revisions that Colorado submitted in these applications are not granted approval at this time. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that Colorado's hazardous waste program revisions listed here satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Colorado final authorization for the following program changes (the federal citation followed by the analog from the Code of Colorado Regulations (6 CCR 7007-3), revised through December 30, 2004, unless otherwise noted: Financial Responsibility; Settlement Agreement (55 FR 25976, 6/26/90)(Checklist 24A)/264.113(a)-(c) and 265.113(a)-(c); Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (53 FR 37912, 9/28/88 & 53 FR 41649, 10/24/88)(Checklists 54 & 54.1)/100.60(c)(1)&(3), 264.54(e), 264.112(c), 264.118(d), 265.112(c)(3)&(4), 265.118(d), 260.10, 100.42(l)(2), 100.62(a)&(b), 100.61, 100.63, and Part 100, Appendix I, 100.22(c)&(d); Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (54 FR 33376, 8/14/89)(Checklist 64)/264.13(a)&(b), 264.112(d)(2), 264.113, 266.12(a)(3)&(4), 265.13(a)&(b), 265.112(d), 265.113, and Part 100, Appendix I; Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes (57 FR 37194, 08/18/92)(Checklist 109)/100.20(b)(6), 100.40(a)(13), 100.41(a)(2), 100.63(e)(3)(ii)(B), 100.63 Appendix I, I(6), 100.63 Appendix I, 100.63 Appendix I & M, 260.10, 261.3(a)(2)(iii), 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1)&(2), 261.3(f), 262.34(a)(1)(iii), 262.34(a)(1)(iii)(B), 262.34(a)(1)(iv), 262.34(a)(2), 264.110(b), 264.111(c), 264.112(a)(2), 264.1100-1100(e), 264.1101(a)-(e), 264.1102(a)&(b), 265.110(b)(1)-(b)(4), 265.111(c), 265.112(d)(4), 265.221(h), 265.1100-1100(e), 265.1101(a)-(e), 265.1192(a)&(b), 266.10(b)-(b)(4), 266.12(a), 268.2(g), 268.2(h), 268.5 (reserved), 268.7(a)(1)(iii)-(v), 268.7(a)(2), 268.7(a)(3)(iv)-(vi), 268.7(a)(4), 268.7(b)(4)&(5), 268.7(d), 268.9(d), 268.14(a)-(c), 268.36(a)-(i), 268.40(b)&(d), 268.41(a), 268.41(a)/Table CCWE, 268.41(c), 268.42/Table 2, 268.42(b)&(d), 268.43/Table CCW, 268.45(a)-(d)(5), 268.45/Table 1, 268.46, 268.46/Table 1, 268.50(a)(1)&(2), and 268 Appendix II; Consolidated Liability Requirements (53 FR 33938, 9/1/88; 56 FR 30200, 7/1/91; and 57 FR 42832, 9/16/92)(Checklists 113, 113.1, & 113.2)/266.11(h), 266.14(i)(11), 266.16(a),(b),(f),(g),&(i)-(m), and 266.18(f)&(h)-(n); Removal of the Conditional Exemption for Certain Slag Residues (59 FR 43496, 08/24/94)(Checklist 136)/267.20(c) and 268.41; Universal Waste Rule (60FR 25492, 05/11/95)(Checklist 142E)/260.20(a), 260.23(a)-(d), 273.80(a)-(c), and 273.81(a)-h); Removal of Legally Obsolete Rules (60 FR 33912, 06/29/95)(Checklist 144)/100.11(b)(1), 100.11(c)(2), and 100.11(d); RCRA Expanded Public Participation (60 FR 63417, 12/11/95)(Checklist 148)/100.11(f)(1)-(4)(ii)(E), 100.22(a)(5), 100.22(c)(2)(vi)-(x), 100.22(c)(4), 100.41(a)(22), 100.42(n), 100.506(a)(1)(vi) 100.506(a)(1)(vii), 100.506(f)(1)-(5), and 260.10; Imports & Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council Decision (61 FR 16290, 04/12/96)(Checklist 152)/261.6(a)(5), 261.10(d) thru (h), 262.53(b), 262.56(b), 262.58(a)&(b), 262.80(a)&(b), 262.81 thru (L), 262.82(a) thru (c)(3), 262.83(a) thru (e)(12), 262.84(a) thru (e), 262.85(a) thru (g), 262.86(a)&(b), 262.87(a) thru (c)(2), 262.88, 268.89(a) thru (e), 263.10(c), 263.20(a), 264.12(a)(1)&(2), 264.71(d), 265.12(a)(1)&(2), 265.71(d), 267.70(b)(2)&(3), 273.20, 273.40, 273.56, 273.79 intro, and 273.70(d); Military Munitions Rule (62 FR 06622, 2/12/97)(Checklist 156)/260.10, 262.20(f), 264.1(g)(8)(iv), 265.1(c)(11)(iv), 267.200-267.202, and 100.10(a)(8); Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers; Clarification & Technical Amendment (62 FR 64636, 12/8/97)(Checklist 163)/100.41(a)(5), 264.15(b)(4), 264.73(b)(6), 264.1030(b)(3), 264.1030(c)&(e), 264.1031, 264.1033(a)(2)(i) thru (iv), 264.1050(b)(3), 264.1050(c)&(f), 264.1060(a) thru (b)(4), 264.1062(b)(2)&(3), 264.1064(g)(6), 264.1064(m), 264.1080(b)(1), 264.1080(c), 264.1082(b), 264.1082(c)(2)(ix)(A)&(B), 264.1082(c)(3), 264.1083(a)(2), 264.1083(b)(1), 264.1083(c)(4)(ii), 264.1084(c)(2)(iii), 264.1084(c)(2)(iii)(B) thru (B)(2), 264.1084(e)(4), 264.1084(f)(3)(i)(D)(4), 264.1084(f)(3)(iii), 264.1084(f)(4), 264.1084(j)(2)(iii), 264.1085(b)(2), 264.1085(d)(1)(iii), 264.1085(d)(2)(i)(B), 264.1085(e)(2)(iii), 264.1086(c)(2), 264.1086(c)(4)(i), 264.1086(d)(2), 264.1086(d)(4)(i), 264.1086(g), 264.1087(c)(3)(ii), 264.1087(c)(7), 264.1089(a), 264.1089(b)(1)(ii)(B), 264.1089(f)(1), 264.1089(j), 265.15(b)(4), 265.73(b)(6), 265.1030(b)(3), 265.1030(d), 265.1033(a)(2)(i) thru (iv), 265.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B), 265.1050(b)(3), 265.1050(e), 265.1060(a)&(b), 265.1062(b)(2)&(3), 265.1064(g)(6), 265.1064(m), 265.1080(b)(1), 265.1080(c), 265.1081, 265.1082(a) thru (d), 265.1083(b), 265.1083(c)(2)(i), 265.1083(c)(2)(ix)(A)&(B), 265.1083(c)(3), 265.1083(c)(4)(ii), 265.1084(a)(2), 265.1084(a)(3)(ii)(B), 265.1084(a)(3)(iii)& (3)(A), 265.1084(a)(3)(iii)(F)&(G), 265.1084(a)(3)(iv)&(v), 265.1084(a)(4)(iv, 265.1084(b)(1), 265.1084(b)(3)(ii)(B), 265.1084(b)(3)(iii), 265.1084(b)(3)(iii)(F)&(G), 265.1084(b)(3)(iv)&(v), 265.1084(b)(8)(iii), 265.1084(b)(9)(iv), 265.1084(d)(5)(ii), 265.1085(c)(2)(iii), 265.1085(c)(2)(iii)(B) thru (B)(2), 265.1085(e)(4), 265.1085(f)(3)(i)(D)(4), 265.1085(f)(4), 265.1085(j)(2)(iii), 265.1086(b)(2), 265.1086(d)(1)(iii), 265.1086(d)(2)(i)(B), 265.1086(e)(2)(iii), 265.1087(c)(4)(i), 265.1087(d)(4)(i), 265.1087(g), 265.1088(c)(3)(ii), 265.1088(c)(7), 265.1090(a), 265.1090(b)(1)(ii)(B), 265.1090(f)(1), 265.1090(j), and 265 Appendix VI; Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes & Mineral Processing Wastes (63 FR 28556, 5/26/98)(Checklist 167A)/268.2(i), 268.3(d), 268.34(a) thru (e), 268.40(e)&(h), 268/Table “Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes”, and 268.48(a)/Table UTS; Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Corrections (63 FR 28556, 5/26/98 and 63 FR 31266, 6/8/98)(Checklists 167C and 167C.1)/268.4(a)(2)(ii)&(iii), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(b)(3)(ii)/Table, 268.7(b)(4)(iv)&(v), 268.7(b)(5)&(6), 268.40(e), 268.40/Table, 268.42(a), 268.45(a) intro, 268.45(d)(3)&(4), 268.48/Table UTS, 268 Appendix VII/Tables 1&2, and 268 Appendix VIII; Organic Air Emission Standards—Clarification & Technical Amendments (64 FR 03382, 1/21/99)(Checklist 177)/262.34(a)(1)(i)&(ii), 264.1031, 264.1080(b)(5), 264.1083(a)(1)(i)&(ii), 264.1083(b)(1)(i)&(ii), 264.1084(h)(3), 264.1086(e)(6), 265.1080(b)(5), 265.1084(a)(1)(i)&(ii), 265.1084(a)(3)(ii)(B)&(D), 265.1084(a)(3)(iii), 265.1084(b)(1)(i)&(ii), 265.1084(b)(3)(ii)(B)(&(D), 265.1084(b)(3)(iii), 265.1085(h)(3), and 265.1087(e)(6); Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Hazardous Waste Lamps (64 FR 36466, 07/06/99)(Checklist 181)/260.10, 261.9(a)(2),(3)&(5), 264.1(g)(11)(ii),(iii)&(v), 265.1(c)(14)(ii),(iii)&(v), 268.1(f)(2),(3)&(5), 100.10(a)(14)(ii),(iii)&(v), 273.1(a)(2),(3)&(5), 273.2(a)(1)(i), 273.2(a)(2)(ii)&(iii), 273.2(b)(1), 273.2(c)(1), 273.2(e), 273.6&7, 273.8(a)&(b), 273.9 “lamp”, “large quantity handler of universal waste”, “small quantity handler of universal waste”, & “universal waste”, 273.10, 273.13(e), 273.30, 273.32(b)(4), 273.33(b)(5), 273.33(e), 273.34(f), 273.50, 273.60(a), and 273.81(a); Organobromine Production Wastes Vactur (65 FR 14472, 03/17/00)(Checklist 185)/261.32/Table, 261.33(f)/Table, 261 Appendix VII & VIII, 268.33, 268.40/Table, and 268.48/Table; Mixture & Derived-From Rules Revisions (66 FR 27266, 06/16/01)(Checklist 192A)/261.3(a)(2)(iii)&(iv), 261.3(c)(2)(i), and 261.3(g)(1)-(3); Land Disposal Restrictions Correction (66 FR 27266, 05/16/01)(Checklist 192B)/268 Appendix VII/Table 1; Change of Official EPA Mailing Address (66 FR 34374, 06/28/01)(Checklist 193)/260.11(a)(11); Mixture & Derived-From Rules Revision II (66 FR 50332, 10/03/01)(Checklist 194)/261.3(a)(2)(iv), and 261.3(g)(4); Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification & Listing (66 FR 58258, 11/20/01, and 67 FR 17119, 04/09/02)(Checklists 195 and 195.1)/261.4(15), 261.32, 261 Appendix VII, 268.36(a)&(b), and 268.40/Table; Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being Reclaimed as Solid Wastes & TCLP Use with MGP Waste (67 FR 11251, 03/13/02)(Checklist 199)/261.2(c)(3), 261.4(a)(17), and 261.24(a); Zinc Fertilizer Rule (67 FR 48393, 07/24/02)(Checklist 200)/261.4, 261.4(a)(20)&(21), 267.20, 267.20(d), 267.20(d)(1)&(2), and 268.40; Performance Track (69 FR 21737, 04/22/04 and 69 FR 62217, 10/25/04)(Checklists 204 and 204.1)/262.34(k)-(m), effective March 2, 2005. H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules? Colorado has requirements that are more stringent than the federal rules at (references are to the Code of Colorado Regulations, except where there is no State analog. Then the reference is to the federal citation): 100.11(f)(2)&(3), 100.11(f)(4)(i)(A)&(C), 100.41(a)(15),(16),&(22), 100 Appendix I, 261.3(a)(2)(iv), 261.3(c)(2)(i), 261.3(h)(1)-(3) no State analogs, 262.34(l)&(m), 264.112(d)(2)(i), 264.113(e)(5), 264.151(i)(2)(d) no State analog, 264.551, 264.552(a)(1), 264.552(a)(1)(ii)(A), 264.552(a)(3)(iii), 264.552(c)(4)&(5), 264.552(c)(7), 264.552(e)(3), 264.552(e)(3)(i) thru (ii)(A) no State analogs, 264.552(e)(4)(i)(A) thru (B), 264.552(e)(4)(v)(E)(5), 264.552(e)(6)(i)(B), 264.552(e)(6)(v), 264.552(e)(6)(v)(B), 264.552(k), & (l), 264.555(a) thru
(g)no State analogs, 265.112(e), 265.113(e)(5), 266.16(i)(1), 266.16(j)(1), 266.16(k)(1), 266.18(h)(2), 266.18(i) thru (k), 268.40(e), 268.7(a)(7), 268.40/Table “Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes”, 268.48/Table UTS, 270.14(b)(15)&(16). Colorado is broader-in-scope than the federal rules at: 261.32
(K140)and 268.40/table (K140 & U408). Colorado is in the process of adopting the federal regulations regarding Boilers & Industrial Furnaces (BIFs). Until the State is authorized for BIF regulations, some of the above approved rules do not include references to these type of facilities at this time. I. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect? Colorado will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which were issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until Colorado has equivalent instruments in place. We will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Item G after the effective date of this authorization. EPA previously suspended issuance of permits for other provisions on the effective date of Colorado's final authorization for the RCRA base program and each of the revisions listed in Item F. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Colorado is not yet authorized. J. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Colorado? Colorado is not authorized to carry out its RCRA program in “Indian country”, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
(1)Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within or abutting the State of Colorado,
(a)Southern Ute Indian Reservation and
(b)Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation;
(2)any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe, and
(3)any other areas which are “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. Therefore, this program revision does not extend to Indian country where EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands. K. What is Codification and is EPA Codifying Colorado's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule? Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart G for the codification of Colorado's updated program until a later date. L. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. 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. Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. 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 document 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 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 action will be effective May 12, 2008. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation-by-reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). Dated: February 28, 2008. Carol Rushin, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E8-4978 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CC Docket No. 94-129; FCC 07-223] Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission revises its requirements concerning verification of a consumer's intent to switch carriers. These new requirements will ensure that each verification includes the date; expand the disclosure obligations of third party verifiers when consumers have questions during the verification; and otherwise clarify the required disclosures by verifiers to ensure that consumers better comprehend precisely what service changes they are approving. The Commission believes that these requirements will increase consumer confidence, decrease the administrative costs for carriers, and alleviate the enforcement burden on state regulatory authorities and the Commission. DATES: Effective April 11, 2008 except for 47 CFR 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), The Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date for the amendment and information collection requirements. Interested parties (including the general public, OMB, and other Federal agencies) that wish to submit written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)information collection requirements must do so on or before May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit PRA comments identified by OMB Control Number 3060-0787 and CC Docket No. 94-129 by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Parties who choose to file by email should submit their PRA comments to *PRA@fcc.gov* . Please include OMB Control Number 3060-0787 and CC Docket No.94-129 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Fax:* Parties who choose to file by paper should submit their PRA comments to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stevenson, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-7039 (voice), or e-mail *Nancy.Stevenson@fcc.gov* . For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission's rules implementing section 258 of the Act have been promulgated through a series of orders. In the *Second Report and Order* (FCC 98-334) published at 64 FR 7746, February 16, 1999, the Commission sought to eliminate the profits associated with slamming by broadening the scope of its carrier change rules and adopting more rigorous slamming liability and carrier change verification measures. In the *Third Reconsideration Order* (FCC 03-42), published at 68 FR 19152, April 18, 2003, the Commission modified certain rules concerning verification of carrier change requests and liability for slamming. In the *Fifth Reconsideration Order* (FCC 04-214), published at 70 FR 14567, March 23, 2005, the Commission denied petitions filed by a coalition of rural independent local exchange carriers (Rural LECs) seeking reconsideration of the Commission's verification requirement for in-bound carrier change request calls. In the *Third Report and Order* (FCC 00-255), published at 66 FR 12877, March 1, 2001, the Commission declined to mandate specific language for third party verification calls, but did adopt minimum content requirements for such calls. Based on the Commission's experience since the effective date of the *Third Report and Order* (FCC 00-255), in the *Second FNPRM* (FCC 03-42) published at 68 FR 19152, April 18, 2003, the Commission sought comment on the need for additional minimum requirements for third party verification calls in order to maximize accuracy and efficiency for consumers, carriers, and the Commission. This is a summary of the Commission's *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers* , CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 07-223, adopted December 18, 2007, released January 9, 2008 ( *Fourth Report and Order* ), revising its requirements concerning verification of a consumer's intent to switch carriers. The full text of document FCC 07-223 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 07-223 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site: *http://www.bcpiweb.com* or call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice) or
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 07-223 can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format
(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy* . Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis Document FCC 07-223 contains modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995. It will be submitted to OBM for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. Public and agency comments are due May 12, 2008. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Review Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission has assessed the effect of rule changes and find that there likely will be an increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission has taken steps, however, to minimize the information collection burden for small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. The rules permit carriers to decide how the date of verification will be ascertained. In addition, though in some instances the rules require verifiers to inform the consumer that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification is completed, they require verifiers to do so only in situations where the subscriber has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative. The Commission also declines to prohibit verifiers from using compound questions during the verification process. These measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Synopsis 1. The requirements adopted in the *Fourth Report and Order* address issues the Commission has seen repeatedly in its enforcement of the slamming liability rules. They are also fully consistent with *AT&T* v. *FCC* , in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized that section 258 of the Act “authorizes the Commission to prescribe verification procedures.” In light of this decision, the Commission's experiences in dealing with slamming complaints since the implementation of section 258 of the Act, and the comments filed in response to the *Second FNPRM* , the Commission believes that further enhancement of the verification procedures is warranted. 2. In the *Second FNPRM* , the Commission sought comment on whether third party verifiers should be required to state the date of the verification call during the verification process. 3. The Commission concludes that the date of the verification should be obtained at the time of the verification and should be readily identifiable by parties that review the verification at a later date. Requiring that the date of verification be obtained and recorded at the time of the verification, in a readily identifiable manner, protects consumers against unauthorized carrier changes, and conversely prevents customers from fraudulently revoking a validly executed agreement. This requirement also helps to prevent mistakes and confusion that could arise in the verification process, and enhances the evidentiary case on which regulatory authorities may rely in order to determine whether a slam occurred. The Commission also notes that carriers that do not wish to use third party verifications are free to use one of the other approved forms of verification. Therefore, in light of these experiences and this previous rule change, as well as the substantial support by most commenters for a requirement that verifications include the date, the Commission finds that the date of the verification should be ascertained and recorded at the time of the verification, and should be readily identifiable by parties that review the verification at a later date. The Commission agrees that carriers should be free to decide how this information will be ascertained, and therefore declines to mandate that the third party verifier must, in all cases, confirm the date verbally with the consumer during the verification. The Commission declines to require that verifications also include the time of the call, because the Commission believes that including the date is sufficient to address the concerns raised by commenters regarding multiple switches. 4. The record reflects that undated verifications have resulted in abuses to the system. In addition, given that the subscriber need not identify the displaced carrier during the verification process, the potential for a slam to occur based on an outdated verification is even greater, because there is no identifying information concerning the date of the verification or the carrier from whom the subscriber is switching. Given the generally widespread support of this proposal by the carrier commenters, the Commission is skeptical that this particular requirement is overly burdensome. It appears that many carriers already register this information; for carriers that do not, the Commission believes that this requirement will only incrementally affect costs of the existing third party verification requirement, particularly since the Commission has given carriers latitude to devise their own methods of obtaining and recording this information. 5. In the *Third Report and Order* , the Commission required that the carrier or carrier's sales representative drop off the call once the connection has been established between the consumer and the third party verifier. In the *Second FNPRM* , the Commission sought comment on whether the verifier should explicitly state that, if the customer has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative regarding the carrier change after verification has begun, the verification will be terminated, and further verification proceedings will not be carried out until after the customer has finished speaking with the sales representative (“Verification Termination Proposal”). In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether the verifier should be required to convey to the customer that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification has been completed in full (“Verification Completion Proposal”), regardless of whether the customer has further contact with the carrier. 6. The Commission declines to adopt the Verification Termination Proposal, but does adopt what is in effect a modified Verification Completion Proposal. The Commission agrees with those commenters that question the utility of having verifiers provide this information to customers at the outset of the verification. The Commission agrees that doing so likely would increase rather than decrease consumer confusion while unnecessarily increasing costs. This determination does not alter existing requirements. Moreover, the record reflects that under prevailing practices, the verifier generally offers the customer the option to either terminate the verification, if the customer wishes to speak to a sales representative before completing the verification, or to complete the verification and defer the question until after completion. 7. The Commission concludes that, if customers have questions which a verifier can not answer and the verifier indicates it will complete the verification and the question is to be deferred to a carrier's sales representative after completion of the verification, the verifier must state that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification has been completed. When customers wait until after the verification is completed to ask sales agents questions that might affect their choice of whether to switch carriers, this creates a potential problem. In such cases, customers may erroneously believe that if they choose not to switch carriers after further discussions with the carrier's agent, the previously completed verification is, in all cases, automatically invalidated. As with the Verification Termination Proposal, however, carriers argue that implementing the Verification Completion Proposal would be superfluous, impose unnecessary costs on carriers, and ultimately cause consumer confusion. Some commenters maintain that implementing this proposal would cause undue anxiety for the consumer, delay the verification process and ultimately altogether dissuade consumers from consummating the carrier switches. 8. The Commission adopts what is in effect a modified Verification Completion Proposal, to accommodate these competing concerns. To avoid consumer confusion, while minimizing obligations on carriers, the Commission requires verifiers to directly state that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification has been completed in full, even where the consumer has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative after the verification process. Such a requirement will avoid consumer misperception that the verification automatically will be invalidated if the consumer decides that they do not want to go through with the carrier switch, and will encourage the consumer to address any potentially confusing issues prior to consummating the verification. The Commission rejects a proposal that verifiers convey this information only at the end of the verification, because it believes that waiting until that point likely will deter consumers from asking questions, out of fear they must go through the whole process again. Some carriers do allow customers to revoke their carrier change authorizations within a certain amount of time after completing the verification process. Therefore, they maintain that requiring third party verifiers to inform consumers that the effectuation can occur after verification is complete could create a conflict with information provided by a sales representative. In these cases, the Commission agrees the verifier should simply inform the consumer of the carrier's verification revocation policy. 9. In the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission sought comment on whether verifiers must clarify to a customer that she is not verifying an intention to retain existing service, but is in fact asking for a carrier change. The Commission noted examples of carriers seeking to obtain customer authorization for carrier changes merely stating to customers that they are consenting to an “upgrade” of the customers' service or to bill consolidation. 10. The Commission agrees with the commenting state utility commissions and Verizon that it should require verifiers to convey explicitly to customers that the carrier change transaction is exactly that, and not a mere upgrade to existing service or any other misleading description. The record reflects that carriers using ambiguous language to describe the nature of the transaction may lead to consumer confusion concerning the true purpose of the solicitation call. The Ohio PUC, for instance, cites instances in which solicitors promised consumers that they would not be changing carriers, inducing these consumers into authorizing carrier changes under the guise of offering discounts and other “upgrades” to their current services. The Commission believes that such practices are misleading and unreasonable, and warrant specific treatment in our rules. Thus, the Commission amends § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of its rules to provide for verifications to elicit “confirmation that the person on the call understands that a carrier change, not an upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation, or any other misleading description of the transaction, is being authorized.” The Commission finds that making these clarifications for the third party verification process will eliminate these sources of confusion. 11. The Commission rejects the contentions of some carriers that this requirement is redundant with existing regulations. Though § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of the Commission's rules already requires, *inter alia* , that the verifier confirm that the person on the call wants to make a carrier change, the record reflects that some carriers introduce ambiguity into what should be a straightforward interaction by describing the carrier change offer as a mere “upgrade” to existing service or in other ways that obscure the true purpose. As the Commission concluded when it first considered proposals for third party verifier script requirements, “the scripts used by the independent third party verifier should clearly and conspicuously confirm that the subscriber has previously authorized a carrier change.” The Commission concludes that requiring the verifier to convey explicitly that the consumers will have authorized a carrier change, and not, for instance, an upgrade to existing service, is a small refinement that will eliminate a significant source of ambiguity to consumers while minimally burdening carriers. 12. IDT opposes this requirement on Constitutional grounds arguing that the Commission “has long avoided requiring specific language in communicating with consumers, in deference to carriers' First Amendment rights.” IDT misconstrues the requirement. The Commission did not propose, nor does it adopt, a specific incantation that verifiers must recite. Rather, the Commission seeks to ensure that verifiers confirm the consumer's intent to receive service from a different carrier, regardless of whether that is phrased as a “change,” a “switch,” or any other non-misleading term. Thus, First Amendment issues are not implicated by the action the Commission takes today. 13. In the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission asked commenters to address whether each piece of information that a third party verifier must gather under its rules should be the subject of a separate and distinct third party verifier inquiry and subscriber response. The Commission notes that § 64.1120(b) of its rules already requires the carrier to obtain separate authorization and verification for each service that is being changed. In addition, customers should be aware of the separate and distinct nature of the types of services they are consenting to switch. Thus, the Commission concludes that its rules provide sufficient protection for consumers, such that a prohibition on compound questions would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome for carriers and consumers alike. 14. In the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission sought comment on whether, when verifying a long distance service change, the verifier should specify that long distance service encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, and whether a verifier should define the terms “intraLATA toll” and “interLATA toll” service. The Commission noted its observation that carriers sometimes use different terms for these services. For example, a carrier might refer to intraLATA service as “short haul long distance, local toll, local long distance, or long distance calls within your state.” The Commission noted receiving numerous complaints from consumers who assert they unknowingly gave up the flat rate for intraLATA service they paid to their LEC when consenting to a carrier change for different services. The Commission declines to require third party verifiers to define for subscribers the terms “intraLATA toll” and interLATA toll” service. The Commission concludes that to do so could increase consumer confusion and add unnecessary time and cost to the verification process. In addition, the Commission believes that other requirements adopted in the *Fourth Report and Order* will go a long way toward alleviating consumer confusion about the services to which they subscribe. The Commission does, however, require third party verifiers to verify that the consumer understands that long distance service includes both international and long distance service. 15. While most commenters acknowledge that distinguishing intraLATA service from interLATA service is particularly complicated, only some support the inclusion of explicit definitions in the verification process. Many carriers believe instead that, in the context of carrier changes, this responsibility should be allocated to the carriers themselves, rather than the third party verifiers. These carriers are concerned primarily that requiring third party verifiers to define complicated terms such as interLATA service and intraLATA service will confuse consumers and cause them to ask questions beyond the verifier's capacity to answer, resulting in likely termination of the verification and an unnecessary and costly reconnection with the carrier's sales representative. The Commission agrees that requiring a third party verifier to explain the differences between intraLATA service and interLATA service could confuse consumers, a majority of whom are unfamiliar with the terms, and increase verification costs. Therefore, the Commission declines to adopt such a requirement. The Commission also notes that these terms have little, if any significance since the former Bell Operating Companies have now been granted permission to re-enter the InterLATA market and provide both IntraLATA and InterLATA service by grant of applications filed pursuant to section 271 of the Act. The Commission does, however, revise certain paragraphs in Subpart K of part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1100 * et seq., * to clarify terminology which heretofore could have been construed to render “intraLATA” synonymous with “intrastate” and “interLATA” synonymous with “interstate.” 16. In adopting the proposal that verifiers specify that long distance service also includes international calls, the Commission disagrees with carriers who suggest that the proposal is unnecessary due to many consumers' purported disinterest in international services. The record reflects that customers have an interest in how carrier changes will affect all aspects of their telecommunications services. Moreover, given the expense of international calling plans, the Commission believes that these services merit special consideration during the verification process. The cost of international connectivity varies widely from carrier to carrier. According to the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), carriers often will charge exorbitant prices after executing an unauthorized carrier change, and international charges are among the most frequently abused. Consequently, customers who erroneously believe that their international rates have not been affected by a carrier change can receive charges for such calls that exceed by many times the rates they expect. In light of the risks of such uninformed consent, the Commission disagrees that many consumers simply are “not interested” in this aspect of their telecommunications services. 17. The Commission notes that some carriers have conducted campaigns that target minorities and consumers with modest English speaking abilities. The Commission believes that these measures are appropriate and necessary to protect such consumers. Finally, the Commission rejects the argument of some carriers that carriers are better situated than verifiers to specify that long distance service also encompasses international service. While the Commission encourages carriers to keep their subscribers informed in this regard, we believe that assigning this role to verifiers will burden the verification process only minimally, if at all. The Commission further believes that doing so will alleviate, rather than exacerbate, consumer confusion. 18. The Commission declines to adopt rule changes proposed by the Joint Commenters regarding the preemption of state slamming regulations that differ from the Commission's. The Commission also rejects a proposal to change the Commission's requirement that carrier sales representatives drop off the sales call once the connection has been established between the subscriber and the verifier. The Commission does, however, adopt clerical changes to its rules to correct previous typographical errors, or to reflect changes in Commission organization. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
(FRFA)19. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 20. The *Fourth Report and Order* adopts clarifications and modifications to §§ 64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1130, 64.1150, 64.1160, and 64.1190 of the Commission's rules pertaining to changes in preferred telecommunications service providers that do not have a significant economic impact on entities subject to those rules. The modifications to § 64.1110(a) and
(b)clarify to whom state notification of the election to administer our carrier-change rules is to be sent at the Commission. The modification to § 64.1120(b) clarifies examples of the types of services for which a verifier conducting a third party verification must obtain separate authorization. The Commission modifies § 64.1120(c)(3) to add the date of the third-party verification. The Commission modifies § 64.1120(c)(iii) to add the requirement that the verifier clarify what constitutes long distance service, and to add the requirement that, when a subscriber has a question for the sales representative, the verifier must explain that the subscriber will have authorized a carrier change at the end of the verification. Section 64.1130(e) is modified to clarify examples of the types of services switched through the use of a letter of agency. The Commission modifies § 64.1150(d) to clarify which subsections apply concerning proof of verification. Section 64.1160(c) is modified to correct a grammatical error. In § 64.1190(c) and § 64.1190(d)(3)(ii)(B) the Commission clarifies the types of services for which a subscriber may request a preferred carrier freeze. 21. As noted above, the modified verification requirements in the *Fourth Report and Order* provide that a third-party verification must include the date of the verification, and that the verifier must convey to the consumer that long distance service includes international service, and, if the subscriber has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative, the verifier must indicate that once the verification is completed, the subscriber's service will be switched. These additions should require only minor modifications to third-party verifications. Specifically, from the Commission's experience with verifications, as well as from the record in this proceeding, the Commission believes that most verifications already contain the date; in addition, the Commission will allow carriers to decide themselves how they would like this information to be ascertained. Likewise, from our experience, as well as from the record in this proceeding, the Commission believes that customers have additional questions in relatively few cases, and thus will generally not trigger the requirement that the verifier inform the customer that the service will still be switched if the verification is completed. Other rule changes in the *Fourth Report and Order* are minor clarifications (such as grammatical corrections to the existing rules) that would not generate any additional burdens. Thus, the Commission believes that the compliance burden, and resulting economic impact on entities subject thereto, will be *de minimus* . Therefore, the Commission certifies for purposes of the RFA that the clarifications and modifications adopted in the *Fourth Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 22. The Commission will send a copy of the *Fourth Report and Order,* including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. Congressional Review Act The Commission will send a copy of FCC 07-223 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Ordering Clauses Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 206-208, and 258, and § 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.421, document FCC 07-223 is adopted, and that part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 64, is amended. The requirements of the *Fourth Report and Order* shall become effective April 11, 2008, except § 64.1120 (c)(3)(iii) which contains information collections that have not been approved by OMB. These information collections will go into effect upon announcement in the **Federal Register** of OMB approval. The information collections contained herein are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 07-223 in CC Docket No. 94-129, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows: PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B),(c), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254
(k)unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 64.1110 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph
(a)and the first sentence in paragraph (b), to read as follows: § 64.1110 State notification of election to administer FCC rules.
(a)* * * State notification of an intention to administer the Federal Communications Commission's unauthorized carrier change rules and remedies, as enumerated in §§ 64.1100 through 64.1190, shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC Docket No. 94-129 with a copy of such notification provided to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief.* * *
(b)* * * State notification of an intention to discontinue administering the Federal Communications Commission's unauthorized carrier change rules and remedies, as enumerated in §§ 64.1100 through 64.1190, shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC Docket No. 94-129 with a copy of such amended notification provided to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief.* * * 3. Section 64.1120 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraphs
(b)and (c)(3), and revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii), to read as follows: § 64.1120 Verification of orders for telecommunications service.
(b)Where a telecommunications carrier is selling more than one type of telecommunications service ( *e.g.* , local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll), that carrier must obtain separate authorization from the subscriber for each service sold, although the authorizations may be obtained within the same solicitation.* * *
(c)* * *
(3)An appropriately qualified independent third party has obtained, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iv) of this section, the subscriber's oral authorization to submit the preferred carrier change order that confirms and includes appropriate verification data ( *e.g.* , the subscriber's date of birth or social security number).* * *
(iii)*Requirements for content and format of third party verification.* Any description of the carrier change transaction by a third party verifier must not be misleading, and all third party verification methods shall elicit, at a minimum: The date of the verification; the identity of the subscriber; confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on the call wants to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on the call understands that a carrier change, not an upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation, or any other misleading description of the transaction, is being authorized; the names of the carriers affected by the change (not including the name of the displaced carrier); the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of service involved (including a brief description of a service about which the subscriber demonstrates confusion regarding the nature of that service). Except in Hawaii, any description of interLATA or long distance service shall convey that it encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, as well as some intrastate calls where applicable. If the subscriber has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative during the verification, the verifier shall indicate to the subscriber that, upon completion of the verification process, the subscriber will have authorized a carrier change. Third party verifiers may not market the carrier's services by providing additional information, including information regarding preferred carrier freeze procedures. 4. Section 64.1130 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (e)(4), to read as follows: § 64.1130 Letter of agency form and content.
(e)* * *
(4)* * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the selection of additional preferred carriers ( *e.g.* , local exchange, intraLATA toll, interLATA toll, or international interexchange), the letter of agency must contain separate statements regarding those choices, although a separate letter of agency for each choice is not necessary; and 5. Section 64.1150 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (d), to read as follows: § 64.1150 Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier.
(d)* * * This proof of verification must contain clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change, as that term is defined in §§ 64.1120 through 64.1130.* * * 6. Section 64.1160 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (c), to read as follows: § 64.1160 Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid charges.
(c)* * * An allegedly unauthorized carrier choosing to challenge such allegation shall immediately notify the complaining subscriber that: The complaining subscriber must file a complaint with a State commission that has opted to administer the FCC's rules, pursuant to § 64.1110, or the FCC within 30 days of either the date of removal of charges from the complaining subscriber's bill in accordance with paragraph
(b)of this section, or the date the allegedly unauthorized carrier notifies the complaining subscriber of the requirements of this paragraph, whichever is later; and a failure to file such a complaint within this 30-day time period will result in the charges removed pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section being reinstated on the subscriber's bill and, consequently, the complaining subscriber will only be entitled to remedies for the alleged unauthorized change other than those provided for in § 64.1140(b)(1).* * * 7. Section 64.1190 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (c), and the second sentence in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B), to read as follows: § 64.1190 Preferred carrier freezes.
(c)Preferred carrier freeze procedures, including any solicitation, must clearly distinguish among telecommunications services ( *e.g.* , local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll) subject to a preferred carrier freeze.* * *
(d)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)* * *
(B)* * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the imposition of preferred carrier freezes on additional preferred carrier selections ( *e.g.* , for local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll), the authorization must contain separate statements regarding the particular selections to be frozen; [FR Doc. E8-4976 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 541 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28874] Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Publication of final theft data. SUMMARY: This document publishes the final data on thefts of model year
(MY)2005 passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year
(CY)2005. The final 2005 theft data indicate an increase in the vehicle theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2005. The final theft rate for MY 2005 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2005 (1.85 thefts per thousand vehicles) increased by 1.1 percent from the theft rate for CY/MY 2004 (1.83 thefts per thousand vehicles) when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2004. As explained in this notice, NHTSA is not concerned at this time about this minor increase. Publication of these data fulfills NHTSA's statutory obligation to periodically obtain accurate and timely theft data and publish the information for review and comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is
(202)366-0846. Her fax number is
(202)493-2990. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers
(VINs)onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles. The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the section 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2005, the most recent calendar year for which data are available. In calculating the 2005 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 2004 theft rates. (For 2004 theft data calculations, see 71 FR 59400, October 10, 2006). As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC)of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources. The 2005 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2005 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2005 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2005, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The final 2005 theft data show a slight increase in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2004. The final theft rate for MY 2005 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2005 increased to 1.85 thefts per thousand vehicles produced, an increase of 1.1 percent from the rate of 1.83 thefts per thousand vehicles experienced by MY 2004 vehicles in CY 2004. NHTSA is not currently concerned with this minor increase in the theft rate. While NHTSA has seen an overall downward trend in theft rates since CY 1993, there have been periods of increase from one year to the next. This increase is lower than any seen in this period. Therefore, NHTSA does not expect that it indicates the beginning of an upward trend for theft rates. For MY 2005 vehicles, out of a total of 233 vehicle lines, 24 lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of the 24 vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, 21 are passenger car lines, two are multipurpose passenger vehicle lines, and one is a light-duty truck line. ER12MR08.003 On Monday, October 15, 2007, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2005 passenger motor vehicles in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 58268). The agency tentatively ranked each of the MY 2005 vehicle lines in descending order of theft rate. The public was requested to comment on the accuracy of the data and to provide final production figures for individual vehicle lines. The agency received no comments in the public docket. However, subsequent to publishing the MY 2005 preliminary theft rate notice (72 FR 58268), the agency was informed that corrections to the original production figures for some Suzuki vehicle lines had been reported to EPA. The agency has revised the MY 2005 final theft data to reflect those corrections. Specifically, as a result of the new production figures provided the Suzuki Aerio which ranked No. 2 with a theft rate of 6.5232, is still ranked No. 2 with a new theft rate of 5.9386; the Suzuki Forenza which ranked No. 19 with a theft rate of 3.8638, is now ranked No. 20 with a new theft rate of 3.7157; the Suzuki Vitara/Grand Vitara which ranked No. 28 with a theft rate of 3.3005, is now ranked No. 29 with a new theft rate of 3.2630; and the Suzuki Verona which ranked No. 32 with a theft rate of 3.1043, is still ranked No. 32 with a new theft rate of 3.1039. The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2005 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2005 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2005 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft Prevention. Final Report of Theft Rates for Model Year 2005 Passenger Motor Vehicles Stolen in Calendar Year 2005 Manufacturer Make/model
(line)Thefts 2005 Production (Mfr's) 2005 2005 Theft rate (per 1,000 vehicles produced) 1 TOYOTA TOYOTA TUNDRA PICKUP 265 14,194 18.6699 2 SUZUKI AERIO 77 12,966 5.9386 3 KIA RIO 156 26,328 5.9253 4 MERCEDES BENZ 215 (CL-CLASS) 9 1,601 5.6215 5 JAGUAR XKR 4 748 5.3476 6 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 188 35,876 5.2403 7 MITSUBISHI GALANT 150 28,808 5.2069 8 DAIMLERCHRYSLER DODGE NEON 783 154,231 5.0768 9 DAIMLERCHRYSLER DODGE MAGNUM 387 79,254 4.8830 10 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER SEBRING 242 49,892 4.8505 11 DAIMLERCHRYSLER DODGE STRATUS 452 94,735 4.7712 12 KIA OPTIMA 145 31,362 4.6234 13 MITSUBISHI LANCER 141 31,226 4.5155 14 NISSAN SENTRA 519 116,354 4.4605 15 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET MALIBU 908 212,400 4.2750 16 TOYOTA TOYOTA ECHO 43 10,540 4.0797 17 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC GRAND AM 248 61,502 4.0324 18 TOYOTA LEXUS GS 12 3,004 3.9947 19 NISSAN INFINITI FX45 7 1,850 3.7838 20 SUZUKI FORENZA 129 34,718 3.7157 21 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET CAVALIER 351 95,838 3.6624 22 HONDA ACURA RSX 69 19,135 3.6060 23 KIA SPECTRA 191 53,027 3.6019 24 HONDA S2000 32 8,921 3.5870 25 MASERATI SPYDER/F1 1 289 3.4602 26 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC SUNFIRE 132 38,239 3.4520 27 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER SEBRING CONVERTIBLE 114 33,498 3.4032 28 TOYOTA TOYOTA MR2 SPYDER 3 912 3.2895 29 SUZUKI VITARA/GRAND VITARA 81 24,824 3.2630 30 TOYOTA LEXUS IS 20 6,343 3.1531 31 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER 300 499 158,545 3.1474 32 SUZUKI VERONA 23 7,410 3.1039 33 HYUNDAI ACCENT 158 51,121 3.0907 34 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET AVEO 196 64,250 3.0506 35 HYUNDAI TIBURON 46 15,100 3.0464 36 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET IMPALA 701 230,633 3.0395 37 NISSAN 350Z 82 27,146 3.0207 38 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE 25 8,471 2.9512 39 FORD MOTOR CO. LINCOLN LS 64 21,743 2.9435 40 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET COBALT 410 140,975 2.9083 41 NISSAN INFINITI QX56 36 12,666 2.8423 42 NISSAN MAXIMA 209 73,931 2.8270 43 NISSAN ALTIMA 1,035 368,779 2.8066 44 MAZDA 6 191 68,252 2.7985 45 SUZUKI RENO 16 5,736 2.7894 46 TOYOTA SCION XB 187 67,396 2.7746 47 SUBARU IMPREZA 103 38,390 2.6830 48 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 284 107,972 2.6303 49 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD TAURUS 527 201,826 2.6112 50 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD FOCUS 637 245,780 2.5917 51 TOYOTA TOYOTA CELICA 11 4,258 2.5834 52 BMW M3 14 5,471 2.5589 53 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC GTO 28 11,065 2.5305 54 ROLLS ROYCE PHANTOM 1 399 2.5063 55 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD MUSTANG 362 145,599 2.4863 56 MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER 36 14,983 2.4027 57 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET BLAZER S10/T10 12 5,018 2.3914 58 NISSAN INFINITI FX35 72 30,172 2.3863 59 DAIMLERCHRYSLER JEEP WRANGLER 178 74,706 2.3827 60 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC XLR 9 3,828 2.3511 61 BMW 6 25 10,636 2.3505 62 TOYOTA TOYOTA COROLLA 864 368,744 2.3431 63 TOYOTA SCION TC 146 62,321 2.3427 64 NISSAN FRONTIER PICKUP 146 62,799 2.3249 65 MITSUBISHI ENDEAVOR 46 20,871 2.2040 66 HYUNDAI SONATA 175 79,781 2.1935 67 MAZDA B SERIES PICKUP 12 5,686 2.1104 68 HYUNDAI ELANTRA 277 132,495 2.0906 69 MITSUBISHI MONTERO 8 3,829 2.0893 70 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC G6 128 62,481 2.0486 71 NISSAN XTERRA 113 55,179 2.0479 72 KIA SEDONA VAN 156 76,527 2.0385 73 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD RANGER PICKUP 209 103,723 2.0150 74 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF/GTI 29 14,447 2.0073 75 HONDA CIVIC 577 288,917 1.9971 76 KIA SORENTO 114 57,272 1.9905 77 MERCEDES BENZ 203 (C-CLASS) 139 70,818 1.9628 78 HONDA ACURA TSX 70 35,836 1.9533 79 ISUZU ASCENDER 14 7,219 1.9393 80 MAZDA RX-8 34 17,608 1.9309 81 KIA AMANTI 43 22,858 1.8812 82 TOYOTA SCION XA 60 32,132 1.8673 83 TOYOTA TOYOTA TACOMA PICKUP 283 151,776 1.8646 84 JAGUAR XJ8/XJ8L 8 4,330 1.8476 85 NISSAN INFINITI G35 120 65,227 1.8397 86 JAGUAR S-TYPE 25 13,629 1.8343 87 MAZDA 3 158 86,184 1.8333 88 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER PT CRUISER 240 133,335 1.8000 89 TOYOTA LEXUS SC 16 9,019 1.7740 90 NISSAN INFINITI Q45 3 1,712 1.7523 91 NISSAN PATHFINDER 143 82,667 1.7298 92 MERCEDES BENZ 208 (CLK-CLASS) 37 21,724 1.7032 93 SUBARU BAJA 14 8,244 1.6982 94 AUDI A4/A4 QUATTRO/S4/S4 AVANT 80 47,470 1.6853 95 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 311 184,671 1.6841 96 TOYOTA TOYOTA CAMRY/SOLARA 732 437,173 1.6744 97 NISSAN QUEST VAN 60 35,913 1.6707 98 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC AZTEK 17 10,197 1.6672 99 DAIMLERCHRYSLER JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 356 214,714 1.6580 100 MERCEDES BENZ 170 (SLK-CLASS) 17 10,310 1.6489 101 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK CENTURY 65 40,051 1.6229 102 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD EXPLORER 317 196,740 1.6113 103 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY SABLE 58 36,134 1.6051 104 SAAB 9-2X 9 5,713 1.5754 105 HONDA ACCORD 576 371,940 1.5486 106 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC 83 53,640 1.5474 107 HONDA ACURA 3.2 TL 125 82,497 1.5152 108 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET COLORADO 206 136,994 1.5037 109 BMW 3 88 58,554 1.5029 110 BMW 5 42 28,346 1.4817 111 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 48 32,416 1.4808 112 GENERAL MOTORS SATURN ION 104 71,021 1.4644 113 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER CROSSFIRE 36 24,679 1.4587 114 GENERAL MOTORS GMC ENVOY 102 70,105 1.4550 115 KIA SPORTAGE 35 24,351 1.4373 116 GENERAL MOTORS GMC CANYON PICKUP 56 39,149 1.4304 117 FORD MOTOR CO. LINCOLN TOWN CAR 67 46,853 1.4300 118 MERCEDES BENZ 129 (SL-CLASS) 15 10,586 1.4170 119 NISSAN MURANO 102 72,482 1.4072 120 TOYOTA TOYOTA MATRIX 99 72,719 1.3614 121 HYUNDAI SANTA FE 100 73,979 1.3517 122 HYUNDAI XG300 27 20,099 1.3434 123 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC VIBE 95 71,357 1.3313 124 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC DEVILLE 76 57,246 1.3276 125 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 116 87,710 1.3225 126 AUDI A8 7 5,336 1.3118 127 VOLKSWAGEN PHAETON 1 768 1.3021 128 MAZDA TRIBUTE 68 52,267 1.3010 129 JAGUAR VANDEN PLAS/SUPER V8 4 3,075 1.3008 130 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD CROWN VICTORIA 24 18,754 1.2797 131 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD FREESTAR VAN 92 72,690 1.2656 132 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET ASTRO VAN 29 23,439 1.2373 133 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER PACIFICA 146 118,329 1.2338 134 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC BONNEVILLE 26 21,519 1.2082 135 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC CTS 74 61,323 1.2067 136 BMW 7 9 7,495 1.2008 137 DAIMLERCHRYSLER DODGE CARAVAN/GRAND CARAVAN 440 367,439 1.1975 138 TOYOTA TOYOTA 4RUNNER 127 106,810 1.1890 139 DAIMLERCHRYSLER DODGE VIPER 2 1,692 1.1820 140 HYUNDAI TUCSON 71 61,346 1.1574 141 ASTON MARTIN DB9 1 874 1.1442 142 GENERAL MOTORS GMC SAFARI VAN 5 4,441 1.1259 143 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD FIVE HUNDRED 109 97,689 1.1158 144 VOLVO V70 9 8,070 1.1152 145 MERCEDES BENZ 220 (S-CLASS) 13 11,831 1.0988 146 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD THUNDERBIRD 10 9,189 1.0883 147 BMW X3 31 28,657 1.0818 148 TOYOTA LEXUS LS 31 29,049 1.0672 149 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET EQUINOX 192 183,758 1.0449 150 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD ESCAPE 252 243,658 1.0342 151 DAIMLERCHRYSLER JEEP LIBERTY 178 173,110 1.0282 152 TOYOTA LEXUS ES 83 80,735 1.0281 153 TOYOTA LEXUS GX 28 27,260 1.0271 154 TOYOTA TOYOTA AVALON 59 57,577 1.0247 155 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET CORVETTE 34 33,810 1.0056 156 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK LESABRE 105 105,985 0.9907 157 TOYOTA LEXUS RX 94 96,140 0.9777 158 PORSCHE BOXSTER 6 6,142 0.9769 159 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET VENTURE VAN 24 25,341 0.9471 160 ROLLS ROYCE BENTLEY CONTINENTAL 3 3,176 0.9446 161 VOLVO S40 24 25,722 0.9331 162 TOYOTA TOYOTA RAV4 75 82,037 0.9142 163 BMW Z4 10 11,079 0.9026 164 HONDA ELEMENT 47 52,440 0.8963 165 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY MARINER 29 32,734 0.8859 166 GENERAL MOTORS SATURN LS 6 6,790 0.8837 167 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 61 69,862 0.8731 168 TOYOTA TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 113 130,146 0.8683 169 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK PARK AVENUE 8 9,282 0.8619 170 GENERAL MOTORS SATURN VUE 56 65,105 0.8601 171 VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT 30 35,149 0.8535 172 PORSCHE 911 7 8,391 0.8342 173 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC STS 31 37,226 0.8328 174 TOYOTA TOYOTA SIENNA VAN 144 172,999 0.8324 175 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK LACROSSE/ALLURE 68 81,894 0.8303 176 LAND ROVER FREELANDER 2 2,441 0.8193 177 MAZDA MPV VAN 15 18,902 0.7936 178 HONDA ACURA 3.5 RL 17 21,526 0.7897 179 VOLKSWAGEN NEW BEETLE 27 34,410 0.7847 180 AUDI A6/A6 QUATTRO/S6/S6 AVANT 12 15,432 0.7776 181 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY 195 253,162 0.7703 182 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK RENDEZVOUS 42 54,775 0.7668 183 VOLVO XC90 33 43,213 0.7637 184 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY MONTEREY VAN 5 6,703 0.7459 185 MERCEDES BENZ 210 (E-CLASS) 30 40,445 0.7417 186 VOLVO S80 8 10,918 0.7327 187 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK RAINIER 10 13,648 0.7327 188 VOLVO S60 15 23,029 0.6514 189 BMW MINI COOPER 30 47,444 0.6323 190 HONDA CR-V 88 144,472 0.6091 191 SAAB 9-3 13 21,433 0.6065 192 LOTUS ELISE 2 3,320 0.6024 193 SUBARU LEGACY/OUTBACK 21 34,944 0.6010 194 AUDI ALLROAD QUATTRO 2 3,420 0.5848 195 HONDA ACURA MDX 35 60,287 0.5806 196 HONDA PILOT 81 142,118 0.5699 197 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET UPLANDER VAN 30 52,713 0.5691 198 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC SRX 13 23,498 0.5532 199 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD FREESTYLE 40 75,643 0.5288 200 HONDA ODYSSEY VAN 85 161,742 0.5255 201 FORD MOTOR CO. FORD GT 1 1,907 0.5244 202 SAAB 9-7X 1 1,999 0.5003 203 MAZDA MX-5 MIATA 2 4,135 0.4837 204 SUBARU FORESTER 24 50,942 0.4711 205 FORD MOTOR CO. MERCURY MONTEGO 13 28,517 0.4559 206 GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC MONTANA VAN 14 31,583 0.4433 207 TOYOTA TOYOTA PRIUS 46 121,020 0.3801 208 SUBARU OUTBACK 29 79,980 0.3626 209 JAGUAR X-TYPE 4 11,299 0.3540 210 GENERAL MOTORS SATURN RELAY 6 17,794 0.3372 211 SAAB 9-5 2 6,137 0.3259 212 VOLVO V50 2 6,909 0.2895 213 GENERAL MOTORS BUICK TERRAZA VAN 2 19,848 0.1008 214 MASERATI GRANSPORT 0 490 0.0000 215 MASERATI QUATTROPORTE 0 1,311 0.0000 216 HONDA ACURA NSX 0 249 0.0000 217 ASTON MARTIN VANQUISH 0 165 0.0000 218 AUDI TT 0 3,375 0.0000 219 ROLLS ROYCE BENTLEY ARNAGE 0 361 0.0000 220 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC FUNERAL COACH/HEARSE 0 854 0.0000 221 GENERAL MOTORS CADILLAC LIMOUSINE 0 472 0.0000 222 FERRARI MARANELLO/F1 0 235 0.0000 223 FERRARI SCAGLIETTI/F1 0 228 0.0000 224 FERRARI SPIDER/F1 0 1,093 0.0000 225 GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET CLASSIC 0 83,060 0.0000 226 GENERAL MOTORS GMC K2500 0 51 0.0000 227 HONDA INSIGHT 0 591 0.0000 228 JAGUAR XJR 0 741 0.0000 229 JAGUAR XK8 0 1,760 0.0000 230 NISSAN ARMADA 0 34,803 0.0000 231 NISSAN TITAN 0 77,628 0.0000 232 SPYKER C8 0 7 0.0000 233 VOLVO XC70 0 14,806 0.0000 Issued on: March 7, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8-4951 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration 49 CFR Part 1572 [Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191; TSA Amendment No. 1572-8] RIN 1652-AA41 Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC)Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License; Correction AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This amendment clarifies that E-2 Visa (Treaty Investor) holders are eligible for a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), and corrects an error in the final rule published on January 25, 2007 72 FR 4392. The amendment adds the E-2 Visa as one of the permissible visa categories for TWIC applicants. Holders of E-2 Visas were explicitly listed as eligible to hold a TWIC in the preamble of the rule, and therefore, this revision carries out the intent of the rule. DATES: Effective on March 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Beyer, Office of Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220; telephone
(571)227-2657; facsimile
(571)227-1380; e-mail *Christine.Beyer@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 25, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through TSA and the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), issued a final rule to further secure the Nation's ports and modes of transportation. The rule implemented the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. Those statutes establish requirements regarding the promulgation of regulations that require credentialed merchant mariners and workers with unescorted access to secure areas of vessels and facilities to undergo a security threat assessment and receive a biometric credential, known as a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). Subsequently, TSA corrected and amended the final rule on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5632); March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14049); March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15195); and September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55043). In the January 2007 final rule, TSA applied its security threat assessment standards that already applied to commercial drivers authorized to transport hazardous materials in commerce to merchant mariners and workers who require unescorted access to secure areas on vessels and at maritime facilities. Also, TSA amended the qualification standards by changing the list of crimes that disqualify an individual from holding a TWIC or a hazardous materials endorsement (HME), and expanded the immigration standards to permit additional lawful nonimmigrants to apply for and hold a TWIC or HME. In selecting the immigration status and visa categories that are eligible for a TWIC, TSA focused on the professionals and specialized workers who are employed prevalently in the maritime industry to work on vessels or other equipment unique to the maritime industry. In the final rule, TSA stated that an alien holding one of the following visa categories would be eligible to apply for a TWIC:
(1)H-1B Special Occupations;
(2)H-1B1 Free Trade Agreement;
(3)E-1 Treaty Trader;
(4)E-2 Treaty Investor;
(5)E-3 Australian in Specialty Occupation;
(6)L-1 Intra Company Executive Transfer;
(7)O-1 Extraordinary Ability; or
(8)TN North American Free Trade Agreement. *See* 72 FR 3551. However, we inadvertently omitted the E-2 Treaty Investor visa category from the immigration standards in the rule text at 49 CFR 1572.105. With this correcting amendment, we revise § 1572.105 to add the E-2 Treaty Investor as an eligible category for TWIC. This addition requires renumbering paragraph (a)(7) and making conforming editorial changes. Former subparagraph (a)(7)(x) is revised so that it correctly applies to all of paragraph (a)(7), not just (a)(7)(i)-(viii). List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1572 Appeals, Commercial drivers license, Criminal history background checks, Explosives, Facilities, Hazardous materials, Incorporation by reference, Maritime security, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle carriers, Ports, Seamen, Security measures, Security threat assessment, Vessels, Waivers. Accordingly, 49 CFR part 1572 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 1572—CREDENTIALING AND SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 1572 continues to read as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103a, 40113, and 46105; 18 U.S.C. 842, 845; 6 U.S.C. 469.49 U.S.C. 2. In § 1572.105, amend paragraph
(a)as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(7)(ix). b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(7)(x) as paragraph
(xi)and revise. c. Add new paragraph (a)(7)(x). § 1572.105 Immigration status.
(a)* * *
(7)* * *
(ix)TN North American Free Trade Agreement;
(x)E-2 Treaty Investor; or
(xi)Another authorization that confers legal status, when TSA determines that the legal status is comparable to the legal status set out in paragraph (a)(7) of this section. Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on March 6, 2008. Mardi Ruth Thompson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Regulations, Transportation Security Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4901 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XG24 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for Processing by the Offshore Component in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 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 vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allocation of the 2008 total allowable catch
(TAC)of Pacific cod apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 9, 2008, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(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 allocation of the 2008 TAC of Pacific cod apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,706 metric tons
(mt)as established by the 2008 and 2009 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season allocation of the 2008 TAC of Pacific cod apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,356 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 350 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. 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 apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 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 § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 7, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1009 Filed 3-7-08; 2:37 pm]
Connectionstraces to 50
Traces to 50 documents
U.S. Code
37 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 111
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9386
  • 33 CFR 110
  • 33 USC 2030
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 33 USC 1232
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 39 CFR 956
  • 40 CFR 80
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 40 CFR 180.607
  • 40 CFR 271
  • 40 CFR 271.21
  • 40 CFR 272
  • 47 CFR 64
  • 47 CFR 64.1120(c)(3)(iii)
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 64.1100
  • 47 CFR 1.421
  • Pub. L. 104-104
  • 49 CFR 541
  • 49 CFR 1572
  • 49 CFR 1572.105
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule; technical amendment
C.F.R.§ 111.27
C.F.R.§ 111.25
U.S.C.§ 321
U.S.C.§ 264
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 7805
U.S.C.§ 471
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Cite21 CFR 111
Cite26 CFR 1
Treas. Dec.T.D. 9386
Cites 87 · 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.