Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 52269 

8Gralin has reported that the glitches in its 

software have led, in limited instances, to 

difficulties in reporting certain data points and 

printing of the SA3 form. The Office is currently 

working with Gralin to resolve these glitches. 

9See Filing of Claims for DART Royalty Funds, 68 

FR 74481 (Dec. 24, 2003), citing Northeast Cellular 

Telephone Company v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 

(D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that a waiver of an 

agency‘s rules is ‘‘appropriate only if special 

circumstances warrant a deviation from the general 

rule and such deviation will serve the public 

interest.’’). 

operators have continued to rely on the 

Gralin form to fulfill their SOA 

reporting and filing requirement under 

Section 111. Given that the Gralin form 

had been made available well in 

advance of the first day of the 60–day 

filing period in years past, operators had 

reasonably expected that it would be 

ready to use at or about the same time 

this year. However, through no fault of 

their own, the cable operators relying on 

Gralin did not have access to the revised 

Gralin form until August 6 this year, 

reducing to about three weeks the time 

they would have had to process and file 

their forms in the absence of a waiver. 

We recognize that complying with the 

existing deadline would be an arduous, 

and perhaps insurmountable task, for 

many cable operators particularly those 

who would have to file hundreds of 

forms during these last three weeks. 

Further, as NCTA indicates, there are 

still minor problems with the Gralin 

software that have been discovered after 

its official release on August 6th. Cable 

operators should not be held 

accountable for matters beyond their 

control. The grant of the requested 

waiver will permit Gralin an additional 

amount of time to fix the problems with 

its software so that the SOA filings will 

be both accurate and complete.8

We also agree with NCTA when it 

states that additional time will help 

operators accurately complete their SOA 

filings, thus reducing the need to file 

supplemental or amended SOAs. It is 

evident that providing sufficient time so 

operators can make that single filing 

will alleviate burdens on the cable 

industry as well as the Copyright Office 

and produce more accurate filings. In 

this context, a waiver will serve the 

interest of the public because it will 

reduce unnecessary paperwork and 

further the efficient administration and 

processing of the incoming SOAs. 

NCTA has also indicated that 

copyright owner groups would not 

oppose a thirty day extension of the 

filing deadline, and the Office has 

received confirmation from 

representatives of the copyright owner 

groups that this is the case. On this 

point, we note that the Office is waiving 

a procedural deadline and not a 

substantive royalty requirement. Cable 

operators will still be paying the 

royalties that are due under the Section 

111 framework, albeit under a modified 

timeline. Thus, in light of the problems 

associated with providing forms and the 

lack of any opposition from those who 

have a direct stake in the filing of the 

statements of account and the timely 

receipt of royalty payments, the Office 

perceives no reason to deny the request. 

Finally, we note that waivers are 

rarely granted by the Office. However, 

the action taken today is necessary 

because of unique, extenuating 

circumstances.9

We hereby waive Section 201.17(c)(1) 

and extend the date for filing cable 

statements of account to September 29, 

2010. Accordingly, interest will be 

assessed pursuant to Section 

201.17(i)(4) for late payments made after 

September 29, 2010. 

Dated: August 18,2010 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights, 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20956 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0429; FRL–8841–2] 

Acetic Acid Ethenyl Ester, Polymer 

With Oxirane; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of acetic acid 

ethenyl ester, polymer with oxirane; 

when used as an inert ingredient in a 

pesticide chemical formulation under 

40 CFR 180.960. BASF Corporation 

submitted a petition to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane on food or feed 

commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 25, 2010. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 25, 2010, 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–2010–0429. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deirdre Sunderland, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 603–0851; e-mail address: 

sunderland.deirdre@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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

52270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to 

Other Related Information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2010–0429 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before October 25, 2010. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0429, 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 

Facility’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 June 23, 

2010 (75 FR 35801) (FRL–8831–3), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 408 

of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing 

the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 

9E7660) filed by, BASF Corporation, 

100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 

07932. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.960 be amended by 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer 

with oxirane; (CAS No. 25820–49–9). 

That notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by the petitioner and 

solicited comments on the petitioner’s 

request. The Agency did not receive any 

comments. 

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 

use 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 an 

exemption from the requirement of 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. . .’’ and specifies 

factors EPA is to consider in 

establishing an exemption. 

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory 

Findings 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be shown that the 

risks from aggregate exposure to 

pesticide chemical residues under 

reasonably foreseeable circumstances 

will pose no appreciable risks to human 

health. In order to determine the risks 

from aggregate exposure to pesticide 

inert ingredients, the Agency considers 

the toxicity of the inert in conjunction 

with possible exposure to residues of 

the inert ingredient through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. If 

EPA is able to determine that a finite 

tolerance is not necessary to ensure that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the inert ingredient, an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance may be established. 

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. In the 

case of certain chemical substances that 

are defined as polymers, the Agency has 

established a set of criteria to identify 

categories of polymers expected to 

present minimal or no risk. The 

definition of a polymer is given in 40 

CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion 

criteria for identifying these low-risk 

polymers are described in 40 CFR 

723.250(d). acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane conforms to the 

definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 

723.250(b) and meets the following 

criteria that are used to identify low-risk 

polymers. 

1. The polymer is not a cationic 

polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated 

to become a cationic polymer in a 

natural aquatic environment. 

2. The polymer does contain as an 

integral part of its composition the 

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and 

oxygen. 

3. The polymer does not contain as an 

integral part of its composition, except 

as impurities, any element other than 

those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 

4. The polymer is neither designed 

nor can it be reasonably anticipated to 

substantially degrade, decompose, or 

depolymerize. 

5. The polymer is manufactured or 

imported from monomers and/or 

reactants that are already included on 

the TSCA Chemical Substance 

Inventory or manufactured under an 

applicable TSCA section 5 exemption. 

6. The polymer is not a water 

absorbing polymer with a number 

average molecular weight (MW) greater 

than or equal to 10,000 daltons. 

Additionally, the polymer also meets 

as required the following exemption 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 

7. The polymer’s number average MW 

of 17,000 is greater than or equal to 

10,000 daltons. The polymer contains 

less than 2% oligomeric material below 

MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric 

material below MW 1,000. 

Thus, acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane meets the criteria 

for a polymer to be considered low risk 

under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its 

conformance to the criteria in this unit, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 52271 

no mammalian toxicity is anticipated 

from dietary, inhalation, or dermal 

exposure to acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

For the purposes of assessing 

potential exposure under this 

exemption, EPA considered that acetic 

acid ethenyl ester, polymer with oxirane 

could be present in all raw and 

processed agricultural commodities and 

drinking water, and that nonoccupational non-dietary exposure was 

possible. The number average MW of 

acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with 

oxirane is 17,000 daltons. Generally, a 

polymer of this size would be poorly 

absorbed through the intact 

gastrointestinal tract or through intact 

human skin. Since acetic acid ethenyl 

ester, polymer with oxirane conform to 

the criteria that identify a low-risk 

polymer, there are no concerns for risks 

associated with any potential exposure 

scenarios that are reasonably 

foreseeable. The Agency has determined 

that a tolerance is not necessary to 

protect the public health. 

V. 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.’’ 

EPA has not found acetic acid ethenyl 

ester, polymer with oxirane to share a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

any other substances, and acetic acid 

ethenyl ester, polymer with oxirane 

does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane does not have 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. 

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the 

Protection of Infants and Children 

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for 

infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the data base unless 

EPA concludes that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Due to the expected low 

toxicity of acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane, EPA has not used 

a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. 

For the same reasons the additional 

tenfold safety factor is unnecessary. 

VII. Determination of Safety 

Based on the conformance to the 

criteria used to identify a low-risk 

polymer, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, 

polymer with oxirane. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA. 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 

Food and Agriculture Organization/ 

World Health Organization food 

standards program, and it is recognized 

as an international food safety 

standards-setting organization in trade 

agreements to which the United States 

is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance 

that is different from a Codex MRL; 

however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA 

requires that EPA explain the reasons 

for departing from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer 

with oxirane. 

IX. Conclusion 

Accordingly, EPA finds that 

exempting residues of acetic acid 

ethenyl ester, polymer with oxirane 

from the requirement of a tolerance will 

be safe. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of 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 rules 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, entitled 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 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). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the exemption 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, or otherwise have any unique 

impacts on local governments. 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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

52272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. As such, to the 

extent that information is publicly 

available or was submitted in comments 

to EPA, the Agency considered whether 

groups or segments of the population, as 

a result of their location, cultural 

practices, or other factors, may have 

atypical or disproportionately high and 

adverse human health impacts or 

environmental effects from exposure to 

the pesticide discussed in this 

document, compared to the general 

population. 

XI. 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 rule in the Federal 

Register. This 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: August 13, 2010. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

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. In §180.960, in the table, add 

alphabetically the following polymer to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

*****

Acetic acid ethenyl 

ester, polymer with 

oxirane, minimum 

number average 

molecular weight (in 

amu), 17,000.

25820–49–9 

*****

[FR Doc. 2010–21138 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0084; 

[92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AW16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Utah 

(Desert) Valvata Snail From the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

the Utah (desert) valvata snail (Valvata 

utahensis) from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). Based on a thorough review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data, we determined that the Utah 

valvata snail is more widespread and 

occurs in a greater variety of habitats in 

the Snake River than known at the time 

of listing in 1992. We now know the 

Utah valvata snail is not limited to areas 

of cold-water springs or spring outflows; 

rather, it persists in a variety of aquatic 

habitats, including cold-water springs, 

spring creeks and tributaries, the 

mainstem Snake River and associated 

tributary stream habitats, and reservoirs 

influenced by dam operations. Given 

our current understanding of the 

species’ habitat requirements and 

threats, the species does not meet the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Therefore, we are removing the Utah 

valvata snail from the List, thereby 

removing all protections provided by 

the Act. 

DATES: This effective date of this rule is 

September 24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and at http:// 

www.fws.gov/idaho. Comments and 

materials received, including supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

rule, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, 

Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; by 

telephone. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Kelly, State Supervisor, at the 

above address; by telephone 208–378– 

5243; or by fax at 208–378–5262 e-mail 

at: fw1srbocomment@fws.gov. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Utah valvata snail (Valvata 

utahensis) was first recognized as a 

species in 1902, based on specimens 

collected from Utah Lake and Bear Lake, 

Utah (Walker 1902, p. 125). Its common 

name has since been changed by the 

American Fisheries Society to the 

‘‘desert valvata’’ in the benchmark text 

for aquatic invertebrate nomenclature, 

Common and Scientific Names of 

Aquatic Invertebrates from the United 

States and Canada (Turgeon et al. 1998, 

p. 109), presumably due to the fact that 

it is no longer known to occur in Utah. 

However, because the species is 

currently listed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations as the Utah valvata snail, 

Valvata utahensis will be referred to as 

the Utah valvata snail throughout this 

final rule. 

Range 

The Utah valvata snail, or at least its 

closely related ancestors, has been 

described as ranging widely across the 

western United States and Canada as far 

back as the Jurassic Period, 199.6 ± 0.6 

to 145.5 ± 4 million years ago (Taylor 

1985a, p. 268). Fossils of the Utah 

valvata snail are known from Utah to 

California (Taylor 1985a, pp. 286–287). 

The Utah valvata snail was likely 

present in the ancestral Snake River as 

it flowed south from Idaho, through 

Nevada, and into northeastern 

California (Taylor 1985a, p. 303). The 

Snake River’s course changed to join the 

Columbia River Basin approximately 2 

million years ago (Hershler and Liu 

2004, pp. 927–928). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES