Unknown. Interim rule and request for comments
29,951 words·~136 min read·
/register/2008/04/09/08-1116A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-04-09.xml --- 73 69 Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State and Zone Designations; Minnesota, 19139-19142 E8-7346 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement:
Altivity Packaging LLC et al., 19250-19259 E8-7235 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19190 E8-7343 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19218-19219 E8-7408 Issuance for Final Policy Directive, 19219-19229 E8-7238 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: New Jersey Advisory Committee, 19190 E8-7411 Commerce Commerce Department See Economic Development Administration See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Defense Defense Department See Navy Department Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Control of Immediate Precursor Used in Illicit Manufacture of Fentanyl as a Schedule II Controlled Substance, 19175-19179 E8-7391 Economic Economic Development Administration NOTICES Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance, 19190-19191 E8-7456 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19197-19198 E8-7454 E8-7455 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records Correction, 19198 E8-7441 Solicitation of Nominations: Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee, 19198-19200 E8-7491 Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee, 19200-19201 E8-7495 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES 1-Methylcyclopropene; Amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 19147-19150 E8-7458 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans:
Nevada, 19144-19147 E8-7046 Pesticide Tolerance: Buprofezin, 19154-19161 E8-7043 Fenhexamid, 19150-19154 E8-7038 PROPOSED RULES National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Aircraft Public Water Systems, 19320-19348 E8-7035 NOTICES Experimental Use Permit Issuance, 19214 E8-7459 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D Airspace; Establishment: New Braunfels, TX, 19143 E8-7094 Class E Airspace; Proposed Establishment:
Huntsville, AR, 19143-19144 E8-7248 PROPOSED RULES Class D Airspace; Proposed Establishment: Albuquerque, NM, 19174-19175 E8-7267 NOTICES Flight Standards Service Schedule of Charges Outside the United States, 19277 E8-7394 Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received, 19277-19278 E8-7389 E8-7393 Surplus Property Release at Mobile Downtown Airport, Mobile, AL; Public Comment Opportunity, 19278 E8-7244 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19214-19216 E8-7501 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 19161-19171 E8-6914 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 19201-19212 E8-7421 E8-7422 E8-7423 E8-7424 E8-7425 E8-7436 E8-7437 Complaint: Entergy Corporation, et al., 19212 E8-7417 System Energy Resources, Inc. et al., 19205 E8-7420 Environmental Assessment: Crisp County Power Commission, 19212 E8-7416 Filing:
Hydro Green Energy, LLC, 19212-19214 E8-7419 Petition for Declaratory Order: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, 19214 E8-7418 Federal Housing Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 19236-19237 E8-7414 Federal Law Federal Law Enforcement Training Center NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Office of State and Local Training, 19233 E8-7407 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 19216-19217 E8-7488 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License;
Applicants, 19217 E8-7466 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Reissuance, 19217 E8-7483 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards, 19282-19317 E8-7070 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 19217 E8-7439 Formations, Acquisitions, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 19217-19218 E8-7440 Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 19218 08-1117 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Recovery Permits Applications, 19237-19238 E8-7435 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, Pacific County, WA, 19238-19239 E8-7452 Meetings: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 19239 E8-7442 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Child Nutrition Programs; Income Eligibility Guidelines, 19186-19187 E8-7475 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Status:
MPM Silicones, LLC, 19191-19192 E8-7473 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Newspapers Used Publication Legal Notice of Appealable Decisions, etc., 19187-19190 E8-7310 Health Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency See Federal Law Enforcement Training Center See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19235-19236 E8-7401 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Grants, 19380-19384 E8-7400 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Job Placement and Training, 19179-19185 E8-7304 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19240-19241 E8-7413 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Source Rules Involving U.S.
Possessions and Other Conforming Changes, 19350-19377 08-1105 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Ferrovanadium from the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 19192-19193 E8-7465 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 19193 E8-7469 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigation:
Off-the-Road Tires From China, 19249 E8-7426 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree, 19249-19250 E8-7270 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19241-19246 E8-7448 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19259-19260 E8-7392 National National Institute for Literacy NOTICES Meetings:
Advisory Board, 19260-19261 E8-7402 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 19229 E8-7390 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 19231 E8-7256 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 19230 E8-7254 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 19230 E8-7253 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 19229-19231 E8-7250 E8-7251 E8-7257 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska:
Atka Mackerel by Vessels in the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery in the Western Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 19172 08-1114 Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 19172-19173 08-1115 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations: Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations— Correction, 19171 08-1116 NOTICES Guidelines for Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation;
Proposed Revision, 19193-19194 E8-7399 Marine Mammals; Amendment Application, 19194 E8-7480 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Clarifying the Definition of Substantial Restoration of Natural Quiet at Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, 19246-19248 E8-7410 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: General Management Plan Amendment; Petrified Forest National Park, AZ, 19248-19249 E8-7409 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Mission Activities;
Hearings, 19194-19196 E8-7461 Intent to Terminate the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft, etc., 19196-19197 E8-7463 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority Within, etc., 19261-19263 E8-7444 Consideration of Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Research, etc., 19263-19265 E8-7449 Order Modifying Amended Facility Operating License:
Oregon State University, 19265-19267 E8-7589 Office Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19267 E8-7377 E8-7378 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Tartan Day (Proc. 8233), 19385-19388 08-1119 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19267-19269 E8-7395 E8-7396 E8-7397 Order Exempting Non-Convertible Preferred Securities From Rule 611(a), etc., 19270-19271 E8-7445 Order Modifying Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades From Rule 611(a), etc., 19271-19274 E8-7446 Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Proposed Rule Changes: New York Stock Exchange LLC, 19274-19276 E8-7443 State State Department NOTICES Determination: Pakistan, 19276-19277 E8-7477 Provision of Assistance to Comoros, 19277 E8-7470 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Current List of Laboratories Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 19231-19232 E8-7429 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19278-19279 E8-7403 Deposits and Savings Accounts by Office, 19279 E8-7457 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19233-19235 E8-7404 E8-7405 E8-7406 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 19282-19317 E8-7070 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 19320-19348 E8-7035 Part IV Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 19350-19377 08-1105 Part V Housing and Urban Development Department, 19380-19384 E8-7400 Part VI Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 19385-19388 08-1119 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 69 Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 77 [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0037] Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State and Zone Designations;
Minnesota AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the bovine tuberculosis regulations regarding State and zone classifications by removing Minnesota from the list of modified accredited advanced States and adding it to the list of modified accredited States. This action is necessary to help prevent the spread of tuberculosis because Minnesota no longer meets the requirements for modified accredited advanced State status.
DATES: This interim rule is effective April 9, 2008. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0037* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No.
APHIS-2008-0037, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0037. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. C. William Hench, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B, MSC 3-E-20, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117;
(970)494-7378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious and infectious granulomatous disease caused by *Mycobacterium bovis.* It affects cattle, bison, deer, elk, goats, and other warm-blooded species, including humans. Tuberculosis in infected animals and humans manifests itself in lesions of the lung, lymph nodes, bone, and other body parts, causes weight loss and general debilitation, and can be fatal. At the beginning of the past century, tuberculosis caused more losses of livestock than all other livestock diseases combined. This prompted the establishment of the National Cooperative State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program for tuberculosis in livestock. Through this program, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) works cooperatively with the national livestock industry and State animal health agencies to eradicate tuberculosis from domestic livestock in the United States and prevent its recurrence. Federal regulations implementing this program are contained in 9 CFR part 77, “Tuberculosis” (referred to below as the regulations), and in the “Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication” (UMR), which is incorporated by reference into the regulations. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. Subpart B of the regulations contains requirements for the interstate movement of cattle and bison not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis. The interstate movement requirements depend upon whether the animals are moved from an accredited-free State or zone, modified accredited advanced State or zone, modified accredited State or zone, accreditation preparatory State or zone, or nonaccredited State or zone. The status of a State or zone is based on its freedom from evidence of tuberculosis in cattle and bison, the effectiveness of the State's tuberculosis eradication program, and the degree of the State's compliance with the standards for cattle and bison contained in the UMR. Prior to this interim rule, Minnesota was designated as a modified accredited advanced State. The regulations in § 77.5 define a modified accredited advanced State or zone as a State or zone in which tuberculosis has been prevalent in less than 0.01 percent of the total number of herds of cattle and bison in the State or zone for each of the most recent 2 years. That definition does provide, however, that a State or zone with fewer than 30,000 herds may have up to 3 affected herds for each of the most recent 2 years, depending on the veterinary infrastructure, livestock demographics, and tuberculosis control and eradication measures in the State or zone. As a State with approximately 21,300 herds, according to data for 2007 obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Minnesota had been able to retain its modified accredited advanced status despite the detection of 3 tuberculosis-affected herds since October 2007. However, the recent detection of a fourth tuberculosis-affected herd means that Minnesota no longer qualifies for modified accredited advanced status. Therefore, we are amending the regulations by removing Minnesota from the list of modified accredited advanced States or zones and adding it to the list of modified accredited States or zones in § 77.11. The four affected herds detected in the State have been quarantined, and a complete epidemiological investigation into the potential sources of the disease is being conducted. Under the regulations in § 77.12, cattle or bison that originate in a modified accredited State or zone, and are not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only under one of the following conditions: The cattle or bison are moved directly to slaughter at an approved slaughtering establishment (§ 77.12(a)); The cattle or bison are sexually intact heifers moved to an approved feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; and are either officially identified or identified by premises of origin identification; and are accompanied by a certificate stating that they were classified negative to an official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement (§ 77.12(b)); The cattle or bison are from an accredited herd and are accompanied by a certificate stating that the accredited herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with negative results within 1 year prior to the date of movement (§ 77.12(c)); or The cattle or bison are sexually intact animals; are not from an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by a certificate stating that the herd from which they originated was negative to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement, except that the additional test is not required if the animals are moved interstate within 60 days following the whole herd test (§ 77.12(d)). Minnesota has indicated that it intends to pursue zone classification, or split-State status, under §§ 77.3 and 77.4 of the regulations, and APHIS is initiating a risk assessment to assist in our evaluation of such a request. That risk assessment will be made available as a supporting document for any future rulemaking we undertake to recognize a zone within Minnesota. Emergency Action This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of tuberculosis in the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential economic effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. This initial regulatory flexibility analysis examines expected impacts for small entities in Minnesota as a result of this interim rule that amends the State's bovine tuberculosis status from modified accredited advanced to modified accredited. We invite comments about this rule as it relates to small entities. Reason for the Action Because of increased incidence of bovine tuberculosis, Minnesota no longer qualifies for modified accredited advanced status. It is necessary to reclassify the State as modified accredited and conduct the additional disease prevention measures required by that reclassification in order to mitigate the spread of bovine tuberculosis to other States. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule The objective of the rule is to limit the spread of tuberculosis from Minnesota to other States. APHIS' authority to carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate bovine tuberculosis is the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301-8317). A Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply The cattle industry plays an important role in Minnesota's economy. There were 21,300 cattle and calf operations (herds) in Minnesota in 2007, with a total inventory of 2.4 million head on January 1, 2008. 1 Cash receipts from cattle and calves and dairy products totaled $925.5 million and $1,073.7 million, respectively, in 2006, the latest year for which these data are available. Seven-year average receipts for cattle and calves and dairy products between 2000 and 2006 were $944 million and $1,162 million, respectively, for an average total of $2.1 billion. 2 1 USDA/NASS. *http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current.Catt/Catt-02-01-2008.pdf.* 2 USDA/ERS, Farm Income: Annual Cash Receipts, 1924-2006: Table 5—Cash Receipts, by Commodity Groups and Selected Commodities, Minnesota, 2000-2006. The vast majority of cattle operations in Minnesota (99 percent, or over 21,000 enterprises) are small entities that have annual receipts of not more than $750,000. The composition of Minnesota's cattle inventory is shown in Table 1. Table 1.—Minnesota's Cattle Inventory by Type: January 1, 2008 Type Number Percentage of total Beef cows 397,000 16.5 Milk cows 463,000 19.3 Heifers: Beef cow replacements 100,000 4.2 Milk cow replacements 270,000 11.3 Other heifers 175,000 7.3 Total heifers 545,000 22.7 Steers 445,000 18.5 Bulls 40,000 1.7 Calves 510,000 21.3 Total 2,400,000 100.0 Source: USDA/NASS. *http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current.Catt/Catt-02-01-2008.pdf.* A Description of Compliance Requirements and Expected Effects of the Rule Minnesota's bovine tuberculosis status has been modified accredited advanced. This interim rule amends the State's status to modified accredited. As a result of this action, herd owners are expected to be negatively affected. The additional requirements for movement of cattle as a result of the change in tuberculosis status are shown in Table 2. As shown, no additional requirements are placed on animals moving directly to slaughter or those moving from an accredited herd. Intact heifers moved interstate to an approved feedlot and steers and spayed heifers moved interstate will require certification and testing within 60 days of movement (60-day test). Also, intact animals (that is, beef and milk cows that have calved, beef and milk cow replacements and bulls) from a herd without accredited status will require a whole herd test within the previous 12 months and a negative 60-day test prior to interstate movement. If the intact animals are moved within 60 days of the whole herd test, they do not require an additional test. Thus, owners of non-accredited herds that move intact animals or steers and spayed heifers interstate will bear additional costs because of Minnesota's loss of modified accredited advanced status. Table 2.—A Comparison of Requirements for Interstate Movement From States or Zones Having Modified Accredited Advanced Status and Modified Accredited Status Type of cattle and movement a Modified accredited advanced status Modified accredited status All types moved directly to slaughter at an approved slaughtering establishment No test required No test required. Intact heifers moved to an approved feedlot b Official ID only Official ID, certificate of negative 60-day test. Steers and spayed heifers c Official ID only Official ID, certificate of negative 60-day test. Cattle from an accredited herd d Certificate that herd was tested within 1 year of movement Certificate that herd was tested within 1 year of movement. Intact cattle from a herd without accredited status Official ID, certificate of negative 60-day test Official ID, certificates of negative whole herd test within previous 12 months and negative 60-day test; 60-day test not required if moved within 60 days of the whole herd test. Source: 9 CFR 77.10 and 77.12. a The movement requirements apply also to bison. b Currently, there are no approved feedlots (facilities that handle high risk animals) in the United States. c There are few, if any, spayed heifers in Minnesota. d There are no accredited herds in Minnesota. Tuberculosis testing, including veterinary fees, completion of certificate forms and handling expenses, costs about $10 to $15 per test. Based on the above information, all steers and intact heifers moved interstate but not directly to slaughter will need certification of a negative 60-day test, and the intact animals from herds without accredited status that move interstate will need a whole herd test and a 60-day test unless moved within the first 60 days following the whole herd test. In estimating what these testing costs may total for Minnesota's cattle producers, and the extent to which small entities may be affected, we have assumed that the change in bovine tuberculosis status will affect all Minnesota herds. We recognize that this assumption overstates the probable number of herds affected, since movement of cattle within Minnesota will not be impacted. However, we also note that there are other marketing costs attributable to the change in status that are not quantified in this analysis; namely, a price discount incurred by sellers of cattle that originate from a State or zone of lower status. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)data, about 32 percent of Minnesota's cattle were moved directly to slaughter in 2007. 3 We do not know the percentage of cattle moved directly to slaughter by class, but assume that the 32 percent is representative for steers. Thus, there will be 302,600 steers (445,000 head × 0.68) that will require certification of a negative 60-day test prior to interstate movement. Applying the above testing costs per animal yields a total annual cost for testing steers of between $3,026,000 (302,600 head × $10 per head) and $4,539,000 (302,600 head × $15 per head). 3 USDA/NASS, Livestock Slaughter, 2007 Summary, March 2008. Assuming that 32 percent of the “Other Heifers” shown in Table 1 are moved directly to slaughter implies that 119,000 intact heifers (175,000 head × 0.68) from this category will require a negative individual 60-day test if these heifers are moved more than 60 days after their herd of origin has had a whole herd test. We also assume that 85 percent of the intact replacement heifers are moved interstate (with operators retaining 15 percent, on average). These heifers number 314,500 (370,000 head × 0.85). Because intact heifers may be moved interstate within 60 days of the whole herd test of their herd of origin, there will be a 10-month period in which intact heifers will require the 60-day test. We estimate that 361,250 intact heifers ([119,000 head + 314,500 head] × 10/12) will require the additional 60-day test each year. Applying the estimated testing costs per animal of $10 to $15, the 60-day test will result in a total annual cost of between $3,612,500 and $5,418,750. As stated above, there are approximately 21,300 cattle and bison herds or operations in Minnesota with a total of 2.4 million animals or with an average number of 113 animals per herd. In order to be eligible for interstate movement, intact cattle or bison must originate from a herd that has had a whole herd test within 1 year prior to the date of interstate movement. Additionally, all dairies must have a whole herd test annually to comply with the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance
(PMO)unless an approved surveillance plan is in place within the State. Assuming that all cattle operations will desire the ability to move their cattle or bison to any other State or zone, or be required to test to comply with PMO, every herd in the State will need to conduct a whole herd test on an annual basis. A whole herd test requires the testing of all animals in a herd that are 12 months of age and older at the time of the test. Calculating a 90 percent yearly calf crop results in an adult population of 60 animals over 12 months of age in the average herd (113 head) in any given year. Based on the 21,300 herds in Minnesota, this results in a total number of 1,278,000 intact cattle (21,300 herds × 60 adult cattle per herd) that will require a whole herd test each year. Assuming, as above, the $10 to $15 cost per head, the total cost for whole herd testing is estimated to be between $12,780,000 and $19,170,000. These cost estimates may be high because the cost of whole herd testing on a per-animal basis is generally less than the cost of testing animals individually 60 days prior to interstate movement. By conducting the whole herd test within 60 days prior to interstate movement of the intact cattle, producers will not incur the cost of a 60-day test. They may, in fact, derive savings from the difference between the testing costs per animal when conducted individually and when conducted as part of a whole herd test. Combining the estimated testing costs for interstate movement of steers and intact heifers and for whole herd testing, we find that Minnesota's loss of modified accredited advanced status may cost its cattle producers between $19.4 million and $29.1 million annually due to the additional bovine tuberculosis testing that is required. Based on the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 22,830 small-entity producers in Minnesota (99 percent of all cattle holdings) that sold a total of 1,068,393 head of cattle (78.8 percent of total sales). They had an average annual income of about $29,400 in 2002. The remaining one percent of producers had sales of 287,749 animals and an average annual income of about $1,540,890. As shown in Table 3, the impact of Minnesota's loss of modified accredited advanced status on its small-entity producers may average more than $1,000 per operation. This amount is equal to about 3.4 percent of average annual sales by small entities in 2002 when based on the upper range of bovine tuberculosis testing costs ($15 per animal tested). Table 3.—The Estimated Cost of Minnesota's Loss of Modified Accredited Advanced Status for Small Entities Total cost of testing a $29.1 million. The cost to small entities b $22.9 million. Average cost per small entity c $1,003. Average cost per small entity as a percentage of average sales per small entity d 3.4%. a From the text, assuming an individual bovine tuberculosis testing cost of $15 per head. b Total testing cost multiplied by 78.8 percent, the percentage of cattle and calves sold by producers with annual revenues of not more than $750,000, that is, small entities. We assume that the total cost of tuberculosis testing incurred by small entities is proportional to their share of the State's total cattle sales. c Total cost for small entities divided by the number of small entities (22,830 producers, based on 2002 Census of Agriculture data). d Average cost per small entity as a percentage of the average annual revenue per small entity ($29,400, based on 2002 Census of Agriculture data). Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict With Other Rules APHIS has not identified any Federal rules that are duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting with this rule. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Rule APHIS has determined that there are no significant alternatives to the interim rule that would accomplish the stated objectives and minimize impacts for small entities. Summary This analysis examines impacts for Minnesota's small entities of that State's loss of modified accredited advanced status. The State's producers of cattle and calves are predominantly small entities. Those producers who move steers, intact heifers or intact adult cattle out-of-state for breeding or feeding purposes will incur increased costs as a result of the change in bovine tuberculosis status. The additional testing costs may average as much as 3.4 percent of the value of annual sales by small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 77 Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Tuberculosis. Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 77 as follows: PART 77—TUBERCULOSIS 1. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. § 77.9 [Amended] 2. In § 77.9, paragraph
(a)is amended by removing the word “Minnesota” and adding the word “None” in its place. § 77.11 [Amended] 3. In § 77.11, paragraph
(a)is amended by removing the word “None” and adding the word “Minnesota” in its place. Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-7346 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29372; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-9] Establishment of Class D Airspace; New Braunfels, TX AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will establish Class D airspace at New Braunfels, Texas. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at New Braunfels Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft operations at New Braunfels Municipal Airport, New Braunfels, Texas. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, AMTI CTR, Central Service Center, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Ft Worth, Texas, 76193-0530; at telephone
(817)222-4949. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On December 18, 2007, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class D airspace at New Braunfels, Texas (72 FR 71606). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft at New Braunfels Municipal Airport, New Braunfels, Texas. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR, part 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class D airspace at New Braunfels, Texas. A new air traffic control tower has been installed at New Braunfels Municipal Airport, making this action necessary for the safety and management of IFR aircraft operations at the airport. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at New Braunfels Municipal Airport, New Braunfels, Texas. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (AIR). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR, part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR, part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW TEXAS D New Braunfels, Texas [New] New Braunfels Municipal Airport, Texas (Lat. 29°42′16″ N., long. 98°02′32″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of New Braunfels Municipal Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 28, 2008. Richard H. Farrell, III, Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-7094 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0004; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-2] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Huntsville, AR AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of the direct final rule that establishes Class E airspace at Huntsville Municipal Airport, Huntsville, Arkansas, published in the **Federal Register** February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8794) Docket No. FAA-2008-0004. DATES: *Effective Dates:* 0901 UTC April 10, 2008. The Director of the **Federal Register** approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History The FAA published a direct final rule with request for comments in the **Federal Register** February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8794), Docket No. FAA-2008-0004. The FAA uses the direct final rule procedure for non-controversial rules where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, was received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 10, 2008. No adverse comments were received; thus, this notice confirms that the direct final rule will become effective on this date. Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 31, 2008. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-7248 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1155; FRL-8548-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Updated Statutory and Regulatory Provisions; Rescissions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is approving certain revisions, and disapproving certain other revisions, to the Nevada state implementation plan. These revisions were the subject of a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2007. The provisions that EPA is approving include certain definitions; prohibitory rules; provisions related to legal authority and enforcement; rules establishing opacity, sulfur and volatile organic compounds limits; and rescission of abbreviations. EPA is disapproving the rescission of a certain definition and the rescission of a rule related to emission discharge information. EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The effect of this action is to update the Nevada state implementation plan with amended or recodified rules and to rescind a provision found to be unnecessary for further retention in the plan. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on May 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1155 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX,
(415)947-4115, *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments III. EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action On December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71095), under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA proposed approval of certain revisions, and disapproval of certain other revisions, to the Nevada state implementation plan
(SIP)that had been submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP)on January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007. Specifically, in our December 14, 2007 action, we proposed to approve the amended rules or statutory provisions shown in table 1. In today's document, we are taking final action on the provisions in table 1 as we had proposed on December 14, 2007, except for NRS 445B.310 for which we take no action today, as explained below. The provisions listed in table 1 replace early 1980's versions of these provisions. We proposed to approve the provisions in table 1 based on our review of applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements and a comparison of the provisions with the corresponding existing SIP provisions that they would replace. In general, we found that the submitted provisions mirror the corresponding provisions in the existing SIP or strengthen the SIP by eliminating exceptions, deleting limitations, or expanding legal authority, and on that basis, found that they would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). With respect to public participation requirements under CAA section 110(l), in our December 14, 2007 proposed rule, we found that adequate documentation had been submitted by NDEP (or otherwise acquired by EPA) to show compliance with CAA procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l) except for NRS 445B.310. Thus, we made our proposed approval of NRS 445B.310 contingent upon receipt of documentation of notice and opportunity for public hearing on adoption of NRS 445B.310 as a revision to the Nevada SIP. We have not received this documentation and thus are not taking final action on NRS 445B.310 in this document. Table 1.—Submitted Rules and Statutory Provision Submitted NAC or NRS Title Adoption date Submittal date NAC 445B.172 “Six-Minute Period” defined 09/16/76 06/26/07 NAC 445B.190 “Stop order” defined 11/03/93 06/26/07 NAC 445B.220 Severability 09/06/06 06/26/07 NAC 445B.225 Prohibited conduct: Concealment of emissions 10/03/95 06/26/07 NAC 445B.227 Prohibited conduct: Operation of source without required equipment; removal or modification of required equipment; modification of required procedure 10/03/95 01/12/06 NAC 445B.229 Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or discontinuance 10/03/95 06/26/07 NAC 445B.275 Violations: Acts constituting; notice 03/08/06 06/26/07 NAC 445B.277 Stop orders 03/08/06 06/26/07 NRS 445B.310 Limitations on enforcement of federal and state regulations concerning indirect sources No adoption date 06/26/07 In our December 14, 2007 proposed rule, we proposed action on three rules (listed in table 2, below) that NDEP seeks to rescind from the existing SIP. NDEP's rescissions of NAC 445.655 and NAC 445.694 are included in a January 12, 2006 SIP submittal, and NDEP's rescission of NAC 445.436 is included in a June 26, 2007 SIP submittal. In our proposed rule, we proposed to disapprove the rescission of NAC 445.436 (“ `Air contaminant' defined”) because it is relied upon by certain SIP rules that remain in the applicable SIP. We proposed to approve the rescission of NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”) because the abbreviations listed therein that are not simply superseded by our approval of the current version of the rule (i.e., NAC 445B.211 (“Abbreviations”), approved on March 27, 2006 at 71 FR 15040) are not relied upon by any rules in the applicable SIP. Lastly, with respect to NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”), we proposed to disapprove the rescission because we found that the rule is needed to comply with requirements under 40 CFR 51.116(c). We are taking final action in today's document on the requested rescissions listed in table 2 as we had proposed on December 14, 2007. Table 2.—Requested Rescissions SIP rule Title Submittal date Approval date NAC 445.436 “Air contaminant” defined 10/26/82 06/26/84 NAC 445.655 Abbreviations 10/26/82 06/26/84 NAC 445.694 Emission discharge information 10/26/82 06/26/84 In our December 14, 2007 proposed rule, we proposed to approve rule recodifications submitted by NDEP to EPA on June 26, 2007 to replace corresponding SIP rules recently approved by EPA in the Nevada SIP (see table 3). The recodified rules reflect the January 2007 update to chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), as published by the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. On the basis of a comparison of the rule recodifications submitted by NDEP and listed in table 3 above with the corresponding SIP rules, we found all of the changes, which include revised titles and updates to internal rule references and historical notes, to be administrative in nature and acceptable. Therefore, we are taking final action in today's document to approve the rule recodifications listed in table 3 as proposed on December 14, 2007. Table 3.—Submitted Rule Recodifications Recodified rule Title Submittal date NAC 445B.001 Definitions 06/26/07 NAC 445B.063 “Excess emissions” defined. 06/26/07 NAC 445B.153 “Regulated air pollutant” defined 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22017 Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity 06/26/07 NAC 445B.2202 Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22043 Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total feed sulfur 06/26/07 NAC 445B.2205 Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22093 Organic solvents and other volatile compounds 06/26/07 Our December 14, 2007 proposed rule and related technical support document
(TSD)provide additional background information and a more detailed rationale for our actions summarized above. II. Public Comments EPA's December 14, 2007 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. No comments were submitted. III. EPA Action As authorized under section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons described above and in our proposed rule, EPA is approving certain revisions, and disapproving certain other revisions, to the Nevada SIP submitted by NDEP on January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007. Specifically, we are approving the provisions listed in table 1, above, except for NRS 445B.310; we are approving the rescission of NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”); and we are approving the rule recodifications listed in table 3, above. 1 We are disapproving the rescissions of NAC 445.436 (“Air contaminant” defined) and NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”). We will take final action on our proposed approval of NRS 445B.310 in a separate document upon receipt of documentation of notice and opportunity for public hearing on adoption of NRS 445B.310 as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 1 Upon the effective date of today's final rule, the following provisions will be superseded in the applicable SIP upon the established compliance date for any new or amended requirements in the superseding provisions (superseding rules from table 1 shown in parentheses): NAC 445.617 (NAC 445B.172), NAC 445.630 (NAC 445B.190), NAC 445.660 (NAC 445B.220), NAC 445.663 (NAC 445B.225), NAC 445.664 (NAC 445B.227), NAC 445.665 (NAC 445B.229), NAC 445.696 (NAC 445B.275), and NAC 445.697 (NAC 445B.277). Also, upon the effective date of this final rule, the rule recodifications listed in table 3 of this document will supersede existing SIP rules with the same section number in NAC chapter 445B. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *June 9, 2008* . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 24, 2008. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by: a. Adding paragraph (c)(25)(v); b. Revising paragraph (c)(56)(i)(A)( *3* )( *i* ); and c. Adding paragraph (c)(66) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(25)* * *
(v)Previously approved on March 27, 1984, in paragraph (c)(25)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Nevada Administrative Code
(NAC)section: 445.655.
(56)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)* * * ( *3* ) * * * ( *i* ) October 3, 1995: 445B.005, 445B.059, 445B.077, 445B.112, 445B.116, 445B.130, 445B.145, 445B.152, 445B.177, 445B.180, 445B.22037, and 445B.227.
(66)The following plan revision was submitted on June 26, 2007 by the Governor's designee. All section citations listed below refer to the January 2007 codification of chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code as published by the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. ( *1* ) The following section of the Nevada Air Quality Regulations was adopted on the date listed below and recodified as Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code in November 1994: ( *i* ) September 16, 1976, effective date December 4, 1976: 445B.172, “Six-Minute Period defined.” ( *2* ) The following section of Chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code was adopted on the date listed below and recodified as Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code in November 1994: ( *i* ) November 3, 1993: 445B.190, “Stop order defined.” ( *3* ) The following sections of Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code were adopted on the dates listed below: ( *i* ) October 3, 1995: 445B.225, “Prohibited conduct: Concealment of emissions;” and 445B.229, “Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or discontinuance.” ( *ii* ) August 19, 2004, effective date September 24, 2004: 445B.001, “Definitions;” 445B.22043, “Sulfur emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources;” and 445B.2205, “Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur.” ( *iii* ) October 4, 2005: 445B.063, “Excess emissions defined;” 445B.153, “Regulated air pollutant defined;” 445B.22017, “Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity;” 445B.2202, “Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources;” and 445B.22093, “Organic solvents and other volatile compounds.” ( *iv* ) March 8, 2006: 445B.275, “Violations: Acts constituting; notice;” and 445B.277, “Stop orders.” ( *v* ) September 6, 2006: 445B.220, “Severability.” [FR Doc. E8-7046 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0433; FRL-8357-5] 1-Methylcyclopropene; Amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an amendment to an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on fruits and vegetables when applied or used outdoors for pre-harvest treatments. Agrofresh Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an amendment to the existing 1-MCP exemption from the requirement of a tolerance at 40 CFR 180.1220. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 1-Methylcyclopropene. DATES: This regulation is effective April 9, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 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-2007-0433. 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: Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9525; e-mail address: *benmhend.driss@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: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 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, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2007-0433 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 on or before June 9, 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 your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0433, 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. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of August 8, 2007 (72 FR 44520) (FRL-8138-9), 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 tolerance petition (PP 7F7170) by Agrofresh, Inc., 100 Independence Mall, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1220 be amended to include residues resulting from outdoor pre-harvest use of 1-Methylcyclopropene. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Agrofresh, Inc. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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.... ” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that 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.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) is a plant regulator known for inhibiting ripening and aging of plants, flowers, fruits, and vegetables caused by the production of ethylene. 1-MCP acts by blocking the attachment of ethylene to tissue, and thus, prolonging the life of the food commodity treated. This mode of action is not relevant in animals, since ethylene receptors are not present in animal tissues. The toxicity profile of 1-MCP has already been assessed by the Agency for its pesticidal use and in support of the tolerance exemption for post-harvest use in or on fruits and vegetables. The final rule was published on July 26, 2002 (67 FR 48796)(FRL-7187-4). Comprehensive review of studies submitted and risk assessment conducted on 1-MCP with regard to its toxicity to human health, done in support of the current petition and the approved tolerance exemption for post-harvest usage, have all concluded that this compound has a low acute toxicity. 1 *. Acute toxicity* . 1-MCP exhibits low acute toxicity for all routes of exposure. It is a category IV for acute oral, dermal, inhalation, eye and dermal irritations. Moreover, 1-MCP is not a skin sensitizer, and no hypersensitivity incidents were observed following exposure to 1-MCP. 2. *Genotoxicity* . 1-MCP was not mutagenic when tested in several short-term *in vitro* / *in vivo* assays, including a bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test), an *in vitro* mammalian point mutation assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells, an *in vitro* cytogenetics assay in human lymphocytes and an *in vivo* mouse micronucleus assay following inhalation exposure. In addition, 1-MCP is not mutagenic when tested as a suspension in cell media in the Ames test and in the *in vitro* mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay (MRID 444647-10) and is not mutagenic in the *in vivo* mouse micronucleus assay (MRID 444747-11) following oral exposure. 3. *Developmental toxicity* . 1-MCP produces no developmental toxicity when tested in a standard developmental toxicity study in the rat via inhalation at concentrations up to and including 2.3 milligram active ingredient/Liter (mg a.i./L) (or 543 mg a.i./kilogram (kg)/day, 6 hour
(hr)exposure/day). The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity was 0.24 mg a.i./L (56 mg a.i./kg/day, 6 hr exposure/day). 4. *Subchronic toxicity* . 1-MCP was tested in a 90-day inhalation study at doses of 0.05, 0.24 and 2.3 mg a.i./kg in the rat. The NOAEL is 0.05 mg a.i./L (equivalent to 9 to 15 mg a.i./kg/day), based on minimal to mild effects on spleen and kidney histopathology at 0.24 mg a.i./L (equivalent to 39 to 66 mg a.i./kg/day). In this study there was no evidence of neurotoxicity, no effects on the respiratory tract and no effects on pathology of any endocrine or reproductive organs up to and including the highest dose tested of 2.3 mg a.i./L (or equivalent to 380 to 640 mg a.i./kg/day). 5. AgroFresh (the applicant) submitted a request to waive the immune response from the testing guidelines. A scientific rationale based on the current toxicological data submitted on 1-MCP was provided to address this data requirement. The review of the 3-month inhalation rat study (mentioned in the previous paragraph) indicates no effects on thymus weight and no effects on the histopathology of the thymus, bone marrow or spleen that would be attributed to an impact on the immune system were seen. There were no effects on white blood cell differential parameters (including monocytes, lymphocytes, segmented neutrophils or eosinophils) and no basophils were observed which may be indicative of an allergic reaction. The Agency concluded that 1-MCP did not induce dysfunction or inappropriate suppressive responses in components of the immune system. As a result, the Agency granted the request to waive immune response from the testing guidelines. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure 1. *Food* . The primary source for human exposure to 1-MCP will be from ingestion of raw and processed fruits and vegetables treated with 1-MCP before and after the harvest. Studies submitted, conducted in the field on apples (MRID 470886-12), maize (MRID 470886-11) and tomatoes (471082-03), showed residues in treated fruits to be extremely low. Moreover, harvested apples treated with 1-MCP in storage areas (MRID 456090-02), showed also low residue (average residue was 0.004 part per million
(ppm)using an exaggerated treatment rate of 1,200 parts per billion
(ppb)versus the 1,000 ppb proposed label rate). A worst-case scenario (using the 0.004 ppm average residue concentration found in treated apples and assuming that concentration is present in 100% of the diet regardless of crops treated) indicates that a daily diet of 1.5 kg/day could contain 0.006 mg 1-MCP. For the general population (assuming an average body weight of 60 kg), this would represent a daily intake of 0.0001 mg 1-MCP/kg body weight which is 90,000 to 150,000-fold less than the 9-15 mg/kg NOAEL indicated in the 90-day inhalation study. Residues in other treated commodities are expected to be similar or even lower since the highest treatment rate is recommended for apples. Processing would be expected to further lower the residue levels in processed food commodities. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . No significant drinking water exposure and residues are expected to result from the pesticidal use of 1-MCP when applied or used as directed on the label and in accordance with good agricultural practices. Moreover, review of the study for soil absorption (OPPTS 835.1220), showed that the field use of 1-MCP should not result in leaching of 1-MCP residues to ground water. B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure There are no residential, school or day care uses proposed for this product. Since the proposed use pattern is for agricultural food crops, the potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to 1-MCP by the general population, including infants and children, is highly unlikely. 1. *Dermal exposure* . Non-occupational dermal exposures to 1-MCP when used as a plant regulator are expected to be negligible because it is limited to agricultural use. 2. *Inhalation exposure* . Non-occupational inhalation exposures to 1-MCP when used as a plant regulator are expected to be negligible because it is limited to agricultural use. V. Cumulative Effects Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish an exemption from 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.” These considerations include the possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children. EPA has considered the potential for cumulative effects of 1-MCP and other substances in relation to a common mechanism of toxicity. 1-MCP cannot share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances because this compound is not toxic to mammalian systems. Thus, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children A. U.S. Population There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of 1-MCP to the U.S. population, infants, and children. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this conclusion based on the low level of mammalian toxicity of 1-MCP and the already widespread exposure to 1-MCP when used on pre-harvested and post-harvested fruits and vegetable, without any reported adverse effects on human health. For these reasons, the Agency has determined that residues of 1-MCP from pre-harvest treatment of fruits and vegetables are safe, i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to such residues. B. Infants and Children FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (also referred to as a 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 unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure are often referred to as uncertainty or safety factors. In this instance, based on all available information, the Agency concludes that 1-MCP is non-toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, and adults when 1-MCP is used as labeled, the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply. As a result, EPA has not used a margin of exposure approach to assess the safety of 1-MCP. VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors EPA is required under section 408(p) of the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” 1-MCP is not known as an endocrine disruptor nor is it related to any class of known endocrine disruptors. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on the Agency's safety finding set forth in this final rule for1-MCP. B. Analytical Method Through this action, the Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1-MCP when used on fruit and vegetable crops. For the very same reasons that support the granting of this tolerance exemption, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for these proposed uses of 1-MCP. C. Codex Maximum Residue Level There are no codex maximum residue levels established for 1-MCP. VIII. Conclusions The Agency does not expect any human health concerns from exposure to residues of 1-MCP when applied or used as directed on the label and in accordance with good agricultural practices. The data submitted by applicant and reviewed by the Agency support the petition for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, for 1-MCP on pre-harvested fruits and vegetable, when the product is applied or used as directed on the label. IX. 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 final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final 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 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final 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). X. 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 31, 2008. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention 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 180.1220 is revised to read as follows: § 180.1220 1-Methylcyclopropene; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the 1-Methylcyclopropene in or on fruits and vegetables when:
(a)Used as a post harvest plant growth regulator, i.e., for the purpose of inhibiting the effects of ethylene.
(b)Applied or used outdoors for pre-harvest treatments. [FR Doc. E8-7458 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0303; FRL-8357-2] Fenhexamid; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of fenhexamid in or on asparagus. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective April 9, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 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-2007-0303. 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-2007-0303 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 June 9, 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-2007-0303, 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 June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35237) (FRL-8133-4), 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 7E7187) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.553 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide, fenhexamid, (N-2,3-dichloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methyl cyclohexanecarboxamide), in or on asparagus at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). This notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Arysta LifeScience, 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. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of fenhexamid on asparagus at 0.02 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In general, the toxicology studies conducted on fenhexamid demonstrated that it has few or no biologically significant toxic effects at relatively low dose levels in many animal studies and only mild or no toxic effects at high dose levels which often approach or exceed the limit dose. In subchronic and chronic oral studies, the most toxicologically significant effects were anemia in dogs, and decreased body weights, increased food consumption and mild liver and/or kidney effects in rats and mice. Fenhexamid is not acutely toxic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, or mutagenic and is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. Although no increased susceptibility of fetuses was demonstrated in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, equivocal results, with respect to evaluating potentially increased sensitivity of pups, were observed in the reproduction study in rats. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fenhexamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of April 13, 2000 (65 FR 19842) (FRL-6553-7) *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/April/Day-13/p9144.htm* . 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 fenhexamid used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document *Fenhexamid Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Section 3 Registration for Use on Asparagus* on pages 25-26 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0303. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to fenhexamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fenhexamid tolerances in (40 CFR 180.553). EPA assessed dietary exposures from fenhexamid 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 fenhexamid; 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, DEEM default processing factors, and assumed 100% crop treated. iii. *Cancer* . Based on the studies of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, EPA has concluded that fenhexamid is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Consequently, a quantitative cancer exposure and risk assessment is not appropriate for fenhexamid. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fenhexamid 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 fenhexamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of fenhexamid for surface water are estimated to be 29 parts per billion
(ppb)for acute and 1.1 ppb for chronic exposure. The EECs for groundwater are estimated to be 0.0007 ppb for acute and chronic exposure. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 1.1 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). Fenhexamid 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 fenhexamid and any other substances and fenhexamid 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 fenhexamid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. * In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (“10X”) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre-natal and post-natal 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. *Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity* . In the rat and the rabbit developmental toxicity studies, neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses to *in utero* exposure to fenhexamid was observed. In the rat reproduction study, qualitative susceptibility was evidenced as significantly decreased pup body weights in both generations during the lactation period (on lactation days 7, 14, and 21 in the F2 generation and lactation days 14 and 21 in the F1 generation offspring) in the presence of lesser maternal toxicity (alterations in clinical chemistry parameters and decreased organ weights without collaborative histopathology). Considering the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints selected for risk assessment for fenhexamid, the degree of concern for the effects observed in this study was characterized as low, noting that there is a clear NOAEL and well-characterized dose response for the offspring effects observed and that these effects occurred in the presence of parental toxicity. No residual uncertainties were identified. The NOAEL of 17 milligrams/kilograms day (mg/kg/day) from the chronic dog study used to establish the chronic Reference Dose
(cRfD)for the General Population is lower than the NOAEL of 38.2 mg/kg/day in the reproduction study in which the offspring effects of concern were observed (LOAEL = 406 mg/kg/day), and is therefore protective of any potential offspring effects. 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 toxicology data base is complete; there are no residual uncertainties in the expose database. ii. Developmental neurotoxicity studies are not required for fenhexamid, and no additional uncertainty factors are needed based on the following weight-of-the-evidence considerations: The lack of evidence of abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system in the pre/post natal studies; and Neither brain weight nor histopathological examination of the nervous system was affected in the subchronic and chronic studies. Decreased body temperatures observed in male rats in the acute neurotoxicity study were also not considered to be toxicologically significant. iii. As discussed above in Unit III D., there are no residual uncertainties for pre and/or post natal sensitivity. iv. The dietary
(food)exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues and assumes 100% of crops treated with fenhexamid. The assessment is based on reliable data and is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk. Fenhexamid is not registered for use sites that would result in residential exposure. Conservative assumptions are used in the drinking water models. The drinking water exposure assessment is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk. 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 toxicological endpoint attributable to a single (acute) dietary exposure was identified. Therefore, acute risk from exposure to fenhexamid is not expected. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to fenhexamid from food and water will utilize 27% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the subpopulation at the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for fenhexamid that result in chronic residential exposure to fenhexamid. 3. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . The Agency has classified fenhexamid as a “not likely” human carcinogen based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female rats as well as in male and female mice, and on the lack of genotoxicity in an acceptable battery of mutagenicity studies. Therefore, fenhexamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk. 4. *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 fenhexamid residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC)method using electrochemical detection (ECD)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no established or proposed Canadian, Mexican or Codex MRLs for fenhexamid on asparagus, therefore there are no issues for international harmonization for this current petition. V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of fenhexamid, (N-2,3-dichloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methyl cyclohexanecarboxamide), in or on asparagus at 0.02 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 26, 2008. Daniel C. Kenny, Acting 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 180.553 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to/in the table in paragraph
(a)to read as follows: §180.553 Fenhexamid; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Asparagus 0.02 * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-7038 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426; FRL-8356-9] Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on berry, low growing , subgroup 13-07G; okra; olive; olive, oil; pepper, nonbell; radicchio; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper; and vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio; and increases the existing tolerance for residues of buprofezin in or on head lettuce. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also removes existing tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on leaf lettuce and tomato and modifies 40 CFR 180.511 by removing the third column (Expiration/Revocation Date) from the table in paragraph (a), since it is no longer applicable. DATES: This regulation is effective April 9, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 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-2007-0426. 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: Susan Stanton, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5218; e-mail address: *stanton.susan@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-2007-0426 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 June 9, 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-2007-0426, 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 July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40877) (FRL-8137-1), 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 7E7207) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.511 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4 *H* -1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4 at 25 parts per million (ppm); olive at 3.0 ppm; olive, oil at 9.0 ppm; and strawberry, bearberry, bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry, muntries and partridge berry at 2.5 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Ninchino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . In the **Federal Register** of October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60369) (FRL-8150-8), 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 7E7253) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.511 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4 *H* -1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and okra at 1.8 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Ninchino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received in response to the notices of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has revised the tolerance levels for several commodities (okra; olive; olive, oil; vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica,* group 4; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8) and determined that separate tolerances are appropriate for head lettuce and radicchio of the leafy vegetable, except *Brassica* , group 4; and nonbell pepper of the fruiting vegetable group 8. EPA has also determined that a tolerance on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G is appropriate in lieu of the proposed tolerances on individual berry commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4 *H* -1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 2.5 ppm; lettuce, head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm; olive at 3.5 ppm; olive, oil at 4.8 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm; radicchio at 6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper at 1.3 ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Buprofezin has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant; nor is it a dermal sensitizer. In subchronic toxicity studies, the primary effects of concern in the rat were increased microscopic lesions in male and female liver and thyroid, increased liver weights in males and females, and increased thyroid weight in males. In chronic studies in the rat, an increased incidence of follicular cell hyperplasia and hypertrophy in the thyroid of males was reported. Increased relative liver weights were reported in female dogs. Buprofezin was not carcinogenic to male and female rats. In the mouse, increased absolute liver weights in males and females, along with an increased incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas plus carcinomas in females were reported. Based on the increased incidence of liver tumors in female mice only, no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats, and no evidence of genotoxicity in submitted guideline studies using *in vitro* and *in vivo* genotoxicity assays, EPA classified buprofezin as having suggestive evidence but found the evidence to be sufficiently weak that quantification of cancer risk was not deemed to be appropriate. There is no evidence that buprofezin results in increased susceptibility of *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. Toxicity in the offspring was found at dose levels that were also toxic to the parent(s), and the effects observed in the offspring were not more severe, qualitatively, than the effects observed in the parent(s). Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by buprofezin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in the document *Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk Assessment for Application to Low-Growing Berries, Olives, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), and Fruiting Vegetables* . The referenced document is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426-0004 in that docket. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors
(UFs)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for buprofezin used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document *Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk Assessment for Application to Low-Growing Berries, Olives, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), and Fruiting Vegetables* at page 11. The referenced document is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426-0004 in that docket. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to buprofezin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing buprofezin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.511. EPA assessed dietary exposures from buprofezin 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. Such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for buprofezin for the population subgroup, females 13-50 years old; no such effects were identified for the general population or other population subgroups. In estimating acute dietary exposure of females 13-50 years old, EPA used food consumption information from the USDA 1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues are present at tolerance levels in all commodities except meat and milk. Anticipated residues were calculated for meat and milk commodities as follows: Tolerances for meat and milk are established at the analytical method limit of quantitation (LOQ). Since residues were only detected in the livestock feeding study when feed contained 6.8-9.3x the maximum theoretical dietary burden (MTDB), residues in these commodities were normalized to 1x the MTDB in the acute dietary exposure assessment. For fruits and crops with an extended interval from initial application to harvest (>50 day), additional metabolites of toxicological concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that are not included in the tolerance expression were included in the dietary exposure assessment, as appropriate, based on the ratio of metabolite to parent found in plant metabolism studies. No adjustment was made to account for the percent of crops treated with buprofezin in the acute dietary exposure assessment. 100 percent crop treated
(PCT)was assumed for all commodities. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated residues and PCT information for some commodities. The chronic analysis employed the same anticipated residue estimates for meat and milk as those employed in the acute analysis. For apple, pear, orange, and orange juice, average residues from the 2003, 2004 and/or 2005 USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP)monitoring data were used for estimation of total buprofezin and metabolite residues. For all other plant commodities, tolerance-level or average field trial residues were used. For fruits and crops with an extended interval from initial application to harvest (>50 day), additional metabolites of toxicological concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that are not included in the tolerance expression were included in the dietary exposure assessment, as appropriate, based on the ratio of metabolite to parent found in plant metabolism studies. The chronic analysis incorporated screening-level PCT estimates for several registered crops and projected percent crop treatment
(PPCT)estimates for apple, peach, apricot, nectarine, cherry, plum, celery, lettuce, spinach, strawberry and tomato. Default processing factors were assumed for all commodities except tomato paste and purèe. The tomato paste and purèe processing factors were reduced to 1.2x based on the results of a tomato processing study. iii. *Cancer* . EPA has classified buprofezin as having suggestive evidence based on the occurrence of liver tumors in female mice. Since the increased incidence of liver tumors occurred in female mice only and there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats or evidence of genotoxicity in submitted guideline studies using *in vitro* and *in vivo* genotoxicity assays, EPA regards the carcinogenic potential of buprofezin as very low and has determined that quantification of human cancer risk is not appropriate. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was not conducted. iv. *Anticipated residue and PCT information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if: a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue. b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group. c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: PCT estimates for existing uses: Almond 1%; cantaloupe 5%; cotton 1%; citrus 1%; grape 1%; honeydew 1%; pear 10%; pistachio 1%; pumpkin 1%; squash 1%; and watermelon 1%. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available federal, state, and private market survey data for that use, averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the nearest multiple of five percent except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases 1% is used as the average. In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent six years. EPA used PPCT estimates for the following commodities: Apple 5%; peach 13%; apricot 40%; nectarine 60%; sweet cherry 44%; tart cherry 76%; plum 35%; celery 18%; head lettuce 67%; lettuce (other) 63%; spinach 30%; strawberry 39%; tomato (fresh) 42%; and tomato (processing) 25%. EPA estimates PPCT for a new pesticide use by assuming that the PCT during the pesticide's initial five years of use on a specific use site will not exceed the average PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one pesticide with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among the chemicals of the same pesticide type (i.e., the leading insecticide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new insecticide). The PCT values included in the averages may be for the same pesticide or for different pesticides, since the same or different pesticides may dominate for each year selected. Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the primary source for PCT data. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses other sources including proprietary data and calculates the PPCT. This estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader, is appropriate for use in chronic dietary risk assessment. The method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. The predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be exceeded are whether a new pesticide use or new pesticide is more efficacious or controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant pesticide; whether there are concerns that increasing pest pressure may intensify the use of alternate pesticides; and/or whether the new pesticide has a shorter pre-harvest or re-entry interval than alternative insecticides. Based on all information currently available, EPA concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for buprofezin will exceed the PPCT during the next five years. A discussion of the factors considered in making this determination can be found in the documents *Projected Percent Crop Treated for the Insecticide Buprofezin on Six Crops: Grapes, Apricots, Nectarines, Sweet Cherries, Tart Cherries, and Plums* and *Projected Percent Crop Treated
(PPCT)for the Insecticide Buprofezin on Five Crops: Celery, Lettuce, Spinach, Strawberries, and Tomatoes* ; and in Attachment #2 to the document *Buprofezin - Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments* . The referenced documents are available at *www.regulations.gov* in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in this unit have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which buprofezin may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for buprofezin 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 buprofezin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs)of buprofezin for acute exposures are estimated to be 57.4 parts per billion
(ppb)for surface water and 0.09 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 12.5 ppb for surface water and 0.09 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 57.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 12.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Buprofezin 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 buprofezin and any other substances and buprofezin 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 buprofezin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (“10X”) 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 quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of *in utero* rat or rabbit fetuses from exposure to buprofezin in prenatal developmental toxicity studies; and there is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study. There is evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures of rats and dogs to buprofezin; however, data to determine whether young animals are more susceptible to these effects are not available. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor of 10X must be retained and applied to all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. For acute exposures, EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor may be reduced to 1X. These decisions are based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for buprofezin contains all of the standard toxicity studies. However, there is uncertainty regarding potential thyroid effects seen in some of these studies. Based on the evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures of rats (histopathological lesions) and dogs (decreases in serum thyroxine levels and increased thyroid weights), EPA requested a buprofezin comparative thyroid assay study in rats (28-day; young versus adults) to determine if the thyroid effects occur at a lower dose in young versus adult animals. Since this study has not been submitted, EPA concludes that the 10X FQPA safety factor to account for database uncertainty should be retained and applied to all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. The FQPA safety factor of 10X is not applicable to the acute endpoint, since a single dose of buprofezin would not be expected to perturb thyroid homeostasis in the adult or the young due to the buffering of thyroid hormone concentrations by homeostatic mechanisms for compounds with short half lives, like buprofezin. ii. There is no indication that buprofezin 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 buprofezin 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. However, the developmental studies were not adequate to fully assess the potential for susceptibility from subchronic and chronic exposures. Consequently, there is concern for potential increased sensitivity or susceptibility in offspring regarding thyroid effects. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were refined for some commodities using reliable PCT/PPCT information and anticipated residue values calculated from the available monitoring data and field trial results. Dietary drinking water exposure is based on conservative modeling estimates. Residential exposures are not expected. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by buprofezin. Although there are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases, no neurotoxic concerns for buprofezin, and no evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring in available studies, there is sufficient uncertainty regarding thyroid effects, particularly thyroid effects in the young, that EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor for all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced to 3X for these exposures, since it has been established that rats are more susceptible to thyroid effects than humans. These factors, together with the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for intraspecies variation, result in a total uncertainty factor of 300X (10X, 3X and 10X) for subchronic and chronic exposures. The total uncertainty factor for acute exposures is 100X (10X intraspecies variation and 10X interspecies variation). 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* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to buprofezin will occupy 7% of the aPAD for the population group females 13-49 years old. No acute endpoint of concern was identified for the remaining population groups. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to buprofezin from food and water will utilize 91% of the cPAD for children, 1 to 2 years old, the population group with the greatest estimated exposure. There are no residential uses for buprofezin that result in chronic residential exposure to buprofezin. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin 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, which does not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin 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, which does not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . As discussed in Unit III.C.1.iii., EPA regards the carcinogenic potential of buprofezin as very low and concludes that it poses no greater than a negligible cancer risk to humans. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to buprofezin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology The gas chromatography/nitrogen phosphorus detector methods used in the field trial studies were adequately validated and similar to the method validated by EPA's Analytical Chemistry Branch
(ACB)and forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual I. Since adequate method validation and concurrent recoveries were attained in the field trial studies, EPA concludes that the method validated by ACB is appropriate for enforcement of the tolerances associated with these petitions. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:
(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue limits
(MRLs)established for buprofezin in/on any of the commodities associated with the current petitions, except tomato. There are Codex and Mexican MRLs for residues of buprofezin *per se* on tomato of 1 ppm and 0.5 ppm, respectively. Both MRLs are lower than the tolerance of 1.3 ppm being established for fruiting vegetables, a group which includes tomato; however, since the field trial data considered in determining the U.S. tolerance level indicate the potential for residues in/on tomato to exceed the international MRLs, harmonization is not possible at this time. C. Response to Comments Comments were received from a private citizen in response to the notices of filing of pesticide petitions PP7E7253 and PP7E7207. In response to the notice of filing of PP7E7207, the commenter indicated that she was unable to open “the report on the proposal” and complained generally about the government website, *http://www.regulations.gov* . If by “the report on the proposal” the commenter is referring to the registrant's summary of the petition, EPA notes that it is available in the docket in two common file formats, MicroSoft Word and Portable Document Format (PDF,) and cannot explain the commenter's inability to open it. In response to the notice of filing of PP7E7253, the commenter objected to any residues on vegetables and “exemptions” for “this product” on the basis of its potential carcinogenicity. EPA considered the carcinogenic potential of buprofezin in its risk assessment and determined that it did not pose a cancer risk. Comments received contained no scientific data or other substantive evidence to rebut this conclusion or the Agency's finding that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to buprofezin from the establishment of these tolerances. The Agency has received these same or similar comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to **Federal Register** 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), and 69 FR 63096 (October 29, 2004) for the Agency's previous responses to these objections. D. Changes to Proposed Tolerances Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has revised the tolerance levels for several commodities and determined that separate tolerances are appropriate for certain members of the leafy (except *Brassica* ) and fruiting vegetable groups. EPA revised the tolerances for okra from 1.8 ppm to 4.0 ppm; olive from 3.0 ppm to 3.5 ppm; olive, oil from 9.0 ppm to 4.8 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio from 25 ppm to 35 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper from 1.8 ppm to 1.3 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels based on analyses of the residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's *Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data* and the results of the olive processing study. EPA also determined that separate tolerances should be established for head lettuce and radicchio at 6.0 ppm and for nonbell pepper at 4.0 ppm, since there is more than a 5-fold difference between residues on these crops and other members of their respective crop groups: vegetable, leafy (except *Brassica* ) group 4; and vegetable, fruiting group 8. A tolerance already exists for residues of buprofezin on head lettuce at 5.0 ppm; it will be increased to 6.0 ppm. IR-4 petitioned for individual tolerances on strawberry, bearberry, bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry, muntries and partridgeberry (PP 6E7163). In the **Federal Register** of December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150) (FRL-8340-6), EPA issued a final rule that revised the crop grouping regulations. As part of this action, EPA expanded and revised berries group 13. Changes to crop group 13 included adding new commodities, revising existing subgroups and creating new subgroups (including a low growing berry subgroup consisting of the commodities requested in PP 7E7207 and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these). EPA indicated in the December 7, 2007 final rule as well as the earlier May 23, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 28920) (FRL-8126-1) that, for existing petitions for which a Notice of Filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA is establishing a tolerance on low growing berry subgroup 13-07G. EPA concludes it is reasonable to establish the tolerance on the newly created subgroup, since the individual commodities for which tolerances were requested are identical to those which comprise low growing berry subgroup 13-07G. V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4 *H* -1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on berry, low growing , subgroup 13-07G at 2.5 ppm; lettuce, head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm; olive at 3.5 ppm; olive, oil at 4.8 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm; radicchio at 6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper at 1.3 ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm. Further, the existing tolerances in/on “lettuce, leaf” at 13.0 ppm and “tomato” at 0.50 ppm are deleted, since residues of buprofezin on these commodities will be covered by the higher tolerances being established on “vegetable, leafy, except *Brassica* , group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio ” and “vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except non-bell pepper”. The table of buprofezin tolerances at 40 CFR 180.511(a) currently includes a third column for expiration/revocation dates. Since none of the existing tolerances is time-limited and EPA is not time-limiting the new tolerances listed in this unit, there is no need for this column. Therefore, the third column of the table is being deleted. 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 26, 2008. Daniel C. Kenny, Acting 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 180.511 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4 *H* -1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.30 Almond 0.05 Almond, hulls 2.0 Apricot 9.0 Atemoya 0.30 Avocado 0.30 Banana 0.20 Bean, snap, succulent 0.02 Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G 2.5 Birida 0.30 Canistel 0.90 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, kidney 0.05 Cattle, liver 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Cherimoya 0.30 Citrus, dried pulp 7.5 Citrus, oil 80 Cotton, gin byproducts 20.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.35 Custard apple 0.30 Feijoa 0.30 Fruit, citrus, group 10 2.5 Fruit, pome, group 11 4.0 Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach 1.9 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, kidney 0.05 Goat, liver 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Grape 2.5 Guave 0.30 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, kidney 0.05 Hog, liver 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, kidney 0.05 Horse, liver 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Llama 0.30 Jaboticaba 0.30 Lettuce, head 6.0 Loganberry 0.30 Lychee 0.30 Mango 0.90 Milk 0.01 Okra 4.0 Olive 3.5 Olive, oil 4.8 Papaya 0.90 Passionfruit 0.30 Peach 9.0 Pepper, nonbell 4.0 Pistachio 0.05 Pulasan 0.30 Radicchio 6.0 Rambutan 0.30 Sapodilla 0.90 Sapote, black 0.90 Sapote, mamey 0.90 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, kidney 0.05 Sheep, liver 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Soursop 0.30 Spanish lime 0.30 Star apple 0.90 Starfruit 0.30 Sugar apple 0.30 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.50 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper 1.3 Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio 35 Wax jambu 0.30 [FR Doc. E8-7043 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the flood plain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for flood plain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Christian County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7726 Little River Approximately 250 feet upstream of Huffman Mill Road +495 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). At confluence with North Fork Little River and South Fork Little River +505 Montgomery Branch Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Louisville and Nashville Railroad +559 City of Hopkinsville, Pembroke, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of Frank Yost Lane +592 North Fork Little River At confluence with Little River and South Fork Little River +505 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Edward T. Breathitt Parkway +535 Rock Bridge Branch At confluence with South Fork Little River +507 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,600 feet upstream of Bradshaw Road +572 Sanderson Creek At confluence with North Fork Little River +525 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of KY-1682 +553 Sinkhole 1 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 10 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +548 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 10A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +545 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 11 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +548 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 11A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +548 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 12 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +545 City of Oak Grove. Flooding Due to Sinkhole +545 Sinkhole 12A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +540 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 13 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +544 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 13A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +535 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 14 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +546 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 14A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +539 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 15 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +546 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 15A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +544 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 16 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +544 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 16A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +555 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 17 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +542 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 18 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +540 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 18A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +523 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 19 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +535 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 19A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +519 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 1A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +568 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 2 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +546 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 20 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +539 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 20A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +522 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 21 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +534 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 21A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +537 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 22 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +533 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 22A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +534 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 23 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +540 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 24 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +558 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 25 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +549 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 26 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +561 City of Oak Grove. Flooding Due to Sinkhole +561 Sinkhole 27 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 28 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 29 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 2A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +556 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 3 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +543 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 30 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +551 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 31 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +550 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 32 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +553 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 33 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +554 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 34 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +557 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 35 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +554 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 36 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +547 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 37 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +542 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 38 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 39 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +542 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 3A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +530 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 4 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +548 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 40 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +542 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 41 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +552 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 42 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +549 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 43 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +546 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 44 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +560 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 45 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +564 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 46 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +563 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 47 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +541 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 48 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +556 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 49 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +560 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 4A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +537 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 5 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +543 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 50 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +558 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 51 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +560 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 52 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +567 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 53 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +569 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 54 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +569 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 55 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +568 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 56 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +530 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 57 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +532 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 58 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +549 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 59 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +567 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 5A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +542 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 6 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +549 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 60 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +558 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 61 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +584 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 62 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +590 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 66 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +501 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 67 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +507 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 68 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +504 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 69 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +509 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 6A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +557 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole 7 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +554 City of Oak Grove. Flooding Due to Sinkhole +554 Sinkhole 70 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +512 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 73 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +568 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 74 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +580 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 75 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +577 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 76 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +544 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 77 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +537 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 78 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +560 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 79 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +577 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 7A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +563 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 8 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +553 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 80 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +555 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 81 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +526 Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 82 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +474 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole 83 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +533 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 84 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +536 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 85 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +537 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 86 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +538 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 87 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +534 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 88 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +543 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 89 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +541 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 8A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +563 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 9 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +547 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 90 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +539 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 91 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +543 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 92 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +544 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 93 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +541 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 94 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +547 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 95 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +541 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 96 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +550 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole 9A Flooding Due to Sinkhole +537 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole I-24 Flooding Due to Sinkhole +561 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole Main Sink Flooding Due to Sinkhole +529 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole NF Flooding Due to Sinkhole +522 City of Hopkinsville. Sinkhole North West Flooding Due to Sinkhole +569 City of Oak Grove. Sinkhole South West Flooding Due to Sinkhole +530 City of Oak Grove, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). South Fork Little River At confluence with Little River and North Fork Little River +505 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 680 feet downstream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way +541 South Fork Little River Tributary Approximately 150 feet downstream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way +537 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 780 feet upstream of Harry Berry Lane +557 White Creek At confluence with Little River and North Fork Little River +533 City of Hopkinsville, Christian County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 170 feet upstream of Madisonville Road +540 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Hopkinsville Maps are available for inspection at 101 North Main Street, Hopkinsville, KY 42240. City of Oak Grove Maps are available for inspection at 8505 Pembroke Oak Grove Road, Oak Grove, KY 42262. City of Pembroke Maps are available for inspection at 101 North Main Street, Hopkinsville, KY 42240. Christian County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 101 North Main Street, Hopkinsville, KY 42240. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7822 Bowman Mill Tributary At the confluence with South Elkhorn Creek +890 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Approximately 920 feet upstream of Palomar Boulevard +940 Bryant Tributary At the confluence with North Elkhorn Creek +943 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of Polo Club Boulevard +985 Cave Hill Tributary At the confluence with Bowman Mill Tributary +907 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Approximately 2,780 feet upstream of the confluence with Bowman Mill Tributary +954 Southpoint Tributary At the confluence with West Hickman Creek +890 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Southpoint Drive +947 Wolf Run Approximately 280 feet upstream of Beacon Hill Tributary +922 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. At Nicholasville Road +990 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Maps are available for inspection at Division of Planning, Current Planning Section, 101 East Vine Street, Lexington, KY 40507. Livingston County, Michigan, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7726 Bogue Creek Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of confluence of South Branch Shiawassee River +842 Township of Cohoctah, Township of Howell, Township of Oceola. Approximately 2 miles upstream of Curdy Road +885 Conway Drain No. 1 Downstream side of W Allen Road +880 Township of Conway. Upstream side of Sherwood Road +885 Fonda Lake Entire shoreline of Fonda Lake +898 Township of Brighton. Halfmoon Lake Entire shoreline of Halfmoon Lake +885 Township of Unadilla. Handy Drain No. 5 Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Converse Road +880 Township of Handy. Approximately 90 feet downstream side of I-96 (East Bound) +893 Handy Iosco Drain No. 1 Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Layton Road +888 Township of Handy, Township of Howell, Township of Iosco. Upstream side of Mason Road +907 Island Lake Entire shoreline of Island Lake +889 Township of Brighton. Marion and Genoa Drain Approximately 525 feet upstream of confluence of South Branch Shiawassee River +882 Township of Marion, City of Howell, Township of Genoa. Approximately 80 feet upstream of Beck Road +913 Middle Branch Red Cedar River Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence of Red Cedar River +886 Township of Handy, Township of Iosco. Upstream side of W Coon Lake Road +894 Mirror Lake Entire shoreline of Mirror Lake +901 Township of Green Oak. Patterson Lake Entire shoreline of Patterson Lake +886 Township of Unadilla. Portage Lake Entire shoreline of Portage Lake +852 Township of Hamburg. Red Cedar River Approximately 150 feet downstream of N Nicholson Road +880 Township of Conway, Township of Handy, Township of Howell, Township of Marion, Village of Fowlerville. Approximately 90 feet upstream of W Coon Lake Road +934 South Branch Shiawassee River Approximately 280 feet downstream of Oak Grove Road +850 Township of Cohoctah, Township of Howell. Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of Bowen Road +864 Thompson Lake Entire shoreline of Thompson Lake +907 Township of Oceola. Tributary to North Ore Creek Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Clyde Road +911 Township of Hartland, Township of Oceola. Upstream side of N Hacker Road +1002 Tributary to Red Cedar River Confluence of Red Cedar River and Tributary to Red Cedar River +883 Village of Fowlerville, Township of Handy. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of Pinewood Drive +899 West Branch Red Cedar River Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Renee Court +878 Township of Conway, Township of Handy. Approximately 400 feet downstream of I-96 Westbound +881 Woodland Lake Entire shoreline of Woodland Lake +936 Township of Brighton. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Brighton Maps are available for inspection at 200 N. First Street, Brighton, MI 48116. Township of Cohoctah Maps are available for inspection at 10518 Antcliff Road, Fowlerville, MI 48836. Township of Conway Maps are available for inspection at 8015 N. Fowlerville Road, Fowlerville, MI 48836. Township of Deerfield Maps are available for inspection at 4492 Center Road, Linden, MI 48451. Township of Genoa Maps are available for inspection at 2911 Dorr Road, Brighton, MI 48116. Township of Green Oak Maps are available for inspection at 1001 Silver Lake Road, Brighton, MI 48116-8361. Township of Hamburg Maps are available for inspection at 10405 Merrill Road, Whitmore Lake, MI 48189. Township of Handy Maps are available for inspection at 136 N. Grand Avenue, Fowlerville, MI 48836. Township of Hartland Maps are available for inspection at 3191 Hartland Road, Hartland, MI 48353. Township of Howell Maps are available for inspection at 3525 Byron Road, Howell, MI 48855. Township of Iosco Maps are available for inspection at 2050 Bradley Road, Webberville, MI 48892. Township of Marion Maps are available for inspection at 2877 W. Coon Lake Road, Howell, MI 48843. Township of Oceola Maps are available for inspection at 1577 N. Latson Road, Howell, MI 48843. Township of Putnam Maps are available for inspection at 131 S. Howell Street, Pinckney, MI 48169. Township of Tyrone Maps are available for inspection at 10408 Center Road, Fenton, MI 48430. Township of Unadilla Maps are available for inspection at 126 Webb Street, Gregory, MI 48137. Village of Fowlerville Maps are available for inspection at 213 S. Grand Avenue, Fowlerville, MI 48836. Village of Pinckney Maps are available for inspection at 220 S. Howell Street, Pinckney, MI 48169. Davie County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7812 Baxter Creek At the confluence with Bear Creek +680 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Bear Creek +692 Bear Creek At the confluence with South Yadkin River +671 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 310 feet downstream of Duke Whittaker Road (State Road 1316) +811 Bear Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Bear Creek +688 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 580 feet upstream of Railroad +698 Bear Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Bear Creek +700 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 740 feet upstream of South Davie Drive +769 Bear Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Bear Creek +708 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 860 feet upstream of Valley Road +763 Bear Creek Tributary 3A At the confluence with Bear Creek Tributary 3 +714 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of Bear Creek Tributary 3 +743 Bear Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Bear Creek +711 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 240 feet upstream of U.S. 64 Highway W +735 Bear Creek Tributary 5 At the confluence with Bear Creek +767 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 410 feet upstream of Ralph Ratledge Road (State Road 1312) +776 Beaver Creek At the confluence with Hunting Creek +702 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 90 feet downstream of Castle Lane +731 Beaver Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Beaver Creek +703 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of U.S. 64 Highway W +738 Becks Spring Branch At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +699 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Eatons Church Road (State Road 1415) +726 Bryant Branch At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +690 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 120 feet upstream of Lutz Lane +715 Buffalo Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +669 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Milling Road +690 Cain Mill Branch At the confluence with Steelman Creek +795 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. At the Davie/Yadkin County boundary +795 Carter Creek At the confluence with Yadkin River +692 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. At NC 801 +699 Carter Creek Tributary At the confluence with Carter Creek +692 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Carter Creek +698 Cedar Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +673 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Wyo Road (State Road 1430) +784 Chinquapin Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +729 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. At the Davie/Yadkin County boundary +788 Cody Creek The confluence with the Yadkin River +658 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of NC 801 +709 Cub Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +674 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Cedar Creek +687 Dry Branch At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +737 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Chinquapin Road +781 Dutchman Creek At the confluence with the Yadkin River +661 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Amber Hill Road (State Road 1325) +811 Dutchman Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +661 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC 801 +681 Dutchman Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +661 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Frank Short Road +705 Dutchman Creek Tributary 4 At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +683 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 640 feet upstream of Woodward Road (State Road 1407) +695 Dutchman Creek Tributary 5 At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +776 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Ben Anderson Road (State Road 1321) +800 Dutchman Creek Tributary 6 At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +784 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Davie/Iredell County boundary +822 Elisha Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +667 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 1,560 feet upstream of the confluence of Elisha Creek Tributary +712 Elisha Creek Tributary At the confluence with Elisha Creek +706 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Elisha Creek +719 Elsworth Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +664 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Williams Road (State Road 1610) +699 Frost Mill Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +688 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Cana Road (State Road 1408) +744 Fulton Creek At the confluence with the Yadkin River +677 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1,080 feet upstream of Markland Road (State Road 1618) +714 Greasy Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +699 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of Eatons Church Road (State Road 1415) +757 Hauser Creek Approximately 100 feet downstream of the Davie/Yadkin County boundary +711 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Spillman Road (State Road 1458) +725 Howard Branch At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +730 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Jack Booe Road (State Road 1330) +772 Humpy Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +661 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 680 feet upstream of Riverview Road (State Road 1814) +686 Hunting Creek At the confluence with South Yadkin River +674 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. At the Davie/Iredell County boundary +724 Hunting Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Hunting Creek +690 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 140 feet downstream of Godbey Road (State Road 1150) +707 Hunting Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Hunting Creek Tributary 1 +690 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1,420 feet upstream of I-40 Highway W +701 Hunting Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Hunting Creek +715 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of County Line Road (State Road 1338) +752 Hunting Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Hunting Creek +719 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Hunting Creek +731 Leonard Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +666 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 1,610 feet upstream of the confluence of Leonard Creek Tributary 1 +698 Leonard Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Leonard Creek +689 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence of Leonard Creek Tributary 1B +739 Leonard Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Leonard Creek Tributary 1 +701 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Leonard Creek Tributary 1 +725 Little Bear Creek At the confluence with Bear Creek +739 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 700 feet downstream of Black Welder Road (State Road 1309) +798 Little Creek (North) At the confluence with South Yadkin River +682 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of the Davie/Iredell County boundary +799 Little Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Little Creek (North) +750 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 640 feet upstream of Crescent Drive (State Road 1157) +760 Nelson Creek At the confluence with Elisha Creek +693 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Mocksville. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of Nelson Creek Tributary 1 +740 Nelson Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Nelson Creek +723 Town of Mocksville. Approximately 660 feet upstream of Park Avenue +758 Nelson Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Nelson Creek Tributary 1 +726 Town of Mocksville. Approximately 1,260 feet upstream of the confluence with Nelson Creek Tributary 1 +752 No Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +661 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 64 +689 Noland Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +675 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1,430 feet upstream of McClamrock Road (State Road 1640) +687 Noland Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Noland Creek +676 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of McClamrock Road +695 Peeler Creek At the confluence with Cody Creek +658 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Will Boone Road (State Road 1802) +696 Peoples Creek At the confluence with the Yadkin River +684 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Palomino Road +770 Reedy Creek At the confluence with the Yadkin River +653 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 400 feet downstream of Cherry Hill Road (State Road 1819) +671 Sheek Creek At the confluence with the Yadkin River +702 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Bermuda Run. Approximately 1,640 feet upstream of Double A Trail +722 Smith Creek Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Kingsmill Drive +700 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Bermuda Run. Approximately 1,510 feet upstream of I-40 Highway W +746 South Yadkin River At the confluence with Yadkin River +648 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Cooleemee. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the Rowan/Davie/Iredell County boundary +699 South Yadkin River Tributary 1 At the confluence with South Yadkin River +656 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with South Yadkin River +669 South Yadkin River Tributary 2 At the confluence with South Yadkin River +656 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the confluence of South Yadkin River Tributary 2B +656 South Yadkin River Tributary 2A At the confluence with South Yadkin River Tributary 2 +656 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 1,590 feet downstream of Pine Ridge Road (State Road 1103) +656 South Yadkin River Tributary 2B At the confluence with South Yadkin River Tributary 2 +656 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with South Yadkin River Tributary 2 +660 South Yadkin River Tributary 3 At the confluence with South Yadkin River +690 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with South Yadkin River +691 South Yadkin River Tributary 4 At the confluence with South Yadkin River +693 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with South Yadkin River +695 Steelman Creek At the confluence with Dutchman Creek +740 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence of Cain Mill Branch +795 Sugar Creek At the confluence with Cedar Creek +681 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 370 feet upstream of Bobbit Road (State Road 1444) +742 Sugar Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Sugar Creek +729 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Rainbow Road (State Road 1441) +737 Yadkin River At the Davie/Davidson/Rowan County boundary +648 Unincorporated Areas of Davie County, Town of Bermuda Run. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Forsyth/Davie/Yadkin County boundary +711 Yadkin River Tributary 1 At the confluence with the Yadkin River +678 Unincorporated areas of Davie County. Approximately 780 feet upstream of Todd Road (State Road 1645) +678 Yadkin River Tributary 3 At the confluence with Yadkin River +695 Town of Bermuda Run. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Bridge Street +703 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Bermuda Run Maps are available for inspection at Bermuda Run Town Hall, 169 Yadkins Valley Road, Suite 100, Advance, North Carolina. Town of Cooleemee Maps are available for inspection at Cooleemee Town Hall, 7766 NC Highway 801 South, Cooleemee, North Carolina 270141. Town of Mocksville Maps are available for inspection at Mocksville Town Hall, 171 Clement Street, Mocksville, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Davie County Maps are available for inspection at Davie County Development Services, 172 Clement Street, Mocksville, North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: March 25, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-6914 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 080103017-8466-02] RIN 0648-AS01 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule to amend the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) that was published in the **Federal Register,** Friday, October 5, 2007. DATES: This correction is effective October 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978-281-9300 Ext. 6503, *diane.borggaard@noaa.gov* ; Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322, *kristy.long@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final rule that is the subject of this correction was published Friday, October 5, 2007 (72 FR 57104). That final rule contains inadvertent errors concerning the effective dates of the rule in both the preamble and regulatory text. This rule provides clarification regarding the effective date for the majority of the provisions of the October 5, 2007 final rule. The DATES section in the preamble and the regulatory text clearly reflect NMFS' intent for the majority of the provisions in the rule to become effective on April 5, 2008. However, the discussion in the preamble inadvertently referenced an incorrect date, April 7, 2008, for the majority of the provisions. NMFS is clarifying that the correct effective date for the majority of the provisions of the ALWTRP rule is April 5, 2008, as clearly stated in the DATES section and the regulatory text. In addition, this rule corrects the effective date for certain paragraphs of § 229.32. Due to an inadvertent error, both the preamble and regulatory text incorrectly indicate that the effective date for those paragraphs is October 6, 2008. This rule corrects the preamble and regulatory text of § 229.32 to correct this error. The correct effective date for the regulatory text in § 229.32 paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(B), (c)(6)(ii)(B), (c)(7)(ii)(C), (c)(8)(ii)(B), (c)(9)(ii)(B), (d)(6)(ii)(D), (d)(7)(ii)(D) and (i)(3), is October 5, 2008. All other information remains unchanged and will not be repeated in this correction. *E.O. 12866:* This final rule has been determined to be not significant under EO 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act:* The AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for public comments as it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. In the October 5, 2007, final rule, the DATES section correctly reflected the intended effective dates of certain paragraphs of § 229.32. However, due to an inadvertent error, part of the preamble and the regulatory text did not reflect the same effective dates as published in the DATES section. This rule clarifies the discussion in the October 5, 2007 preamble and corrects the regulatory text to reflect the correct effective dates for § 229.32. If this rule were subject to notice and opportunity to comment, the provisions published in the October 5, 2007, final rule would go into effect on the incorrect date. In order to avoid confusion with regard to the effective dates of the relevant provisions, the AA waives the rulemaking requirements for this rule. Correction The following are corrections to FR Doc. 07-4904, October 5, 2007: 1. On page 57185, in the first column, in § 229.32(c)(5)(ii)(B), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 2. On page 57185, in the third column, in § 229.32(c)(6)(ii)(B), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 3. On page 57186, in the first column, in § 229.32(c)(7)(ii)(C), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 4. On page 57186, in the second column, in § 229.32(c)(8)(ii)(B), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 5. On page 57187, in the first column, in § 229.32(c)(9)(ii)(B), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 6. On page 57189, in the first column, in § 229.32(d)(6)(ii)(D), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 7. On page 57190, in the first column, in § 229.32(d)(7)(ii)(D), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. 8. On page 57193, in the second column, in § 229.32(i)(3), “October 6, 2008” should read “October 5, 2008”. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ; § 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: April 4, 2008. James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1116 Filed 4-4-08; 2:17 pm]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- Purposes§ 3501
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Flood elevation determinations§ 4104
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Congressional findings and declaration of policy§ 1361
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
register
22 references not yet in our index
- 9 CFR 77
- 7 USC 8301-8317
- 9 CFR 77.10
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 14 CFR 71
- 1 CFR 51
- 40 CFR 52
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 180.1220
- 40 CFR 178
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 40 CFR 180.553
- 40 CFR 180.511
- 40 CFR 180.511(a)
- 44 CFR 67
- 44 CFR 60
- 44 CFR 10
- 5 USC 601-612
- 50 CFR 229
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim rule and request for comments
Cite9 CFR 77
Cite7 USC 8301-8317
Cite9 CFR 77.10
Cites 45 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources