Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58877 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Parts 17 and 59 

RIN 2900–AJ43 

Grants to States for Construction and 

Acquisition of State Home Facilities 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document affirms as 

final, with changes, an interim final rule 

that amended regulations regarding 

grants to States for the construction or 

acquisition of State homes for 

furnishing domiciliary and nursing 

home care to veterans, or for the 

expansion, remodeling, or alteration of 

existing State homes for furnishing 

domiciliary, nursing home, or adult day 

health care to veterans. This rule is 

necessary to update the regulations and 

to implement statutory provisions, 

including provisions of the Veterans 

Millennium Health Care and Benefits 

Act. This document also incorporates 

some non-substantive changes to the 

regulations in the interim final rule and 

recognizes a change made to 38 CFR 

59.50(b) on February 14, 2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

is October 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie A. Robinson, Chief, State 

Home Construction Grant Program 

(114), Veterans Health Administration, 

810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20420, 202–461–6767. (This is not a 

toll free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on June 26, 2001 (66 FR 33845), 

we established a new part 59 setting 

forth a mechanism for providing grants 

to States for the construction or 

acquisition of State homes for 

furnishing domiciliary and nursing 

home care to eligible veterans, or for the 

expansion, remodeling, or alteration of 

existing State homes for furnishing 

domiciliary, nursing home, or adult day 

health care to eligible veterans. The new 

part 59 consists of a comprehensive 

rewrite of the regulations set forth in 

former 38 CFR 17.210 through 17.222. 

We provided a 60-day comment period 

which ended August 27, 2001. We 

received responses from 10 commenters. 

The issues raised in the comments are 

discussed below. Based on the rationale 

set forth in the interim final rule and in 

this document, we are adopting the 

provisions of the interim final rule as a 

final rule with changes explained below 

and with the final regulatory change 

made to § 59.50 that was effective on 

February 14, 2007 (72 FR 6959). 

A number of commenters asserted 

that the overall change in methodology 

for determining the number of 

authorized beds per State was arbitrary 

and lowers the overall bed levels 

nationally. No changes have been made 

based on this comment. 

The provisions of 38 U.S.C. 8134 

require VA to prescribe for each State 

the number of nursing home and 

domiciliary beds for which grants may 

be furnished. Statutorily this is required 

to be based on the projected demand for 

nursing home and domiciliary care on 

November 30, 2009 (10 years after the 

date of enactment of the Veterans 

Millennium Health Care and Benefits 

Act (Pub. L. 106–117)) by veterans who 

at such time are 65 years of age or older 

and who reside in that State. In 

determining the projected demand, VA 

must take into account travel distances 

for veterans and their families. In 

determining the maximum number of 

nursing home and domiciliary beds 

authorized for each State, VA used the 

most recent data available to project, 

among other things, the population of 

veterans 65 years of age or older in each 

State and veteran domiciliary and 

nursing needs in each State in 2009. 

Since the publication of the interim 

final rule, only three States have 

requested exceptions to the published 

bed levels, which VA has granted. We 

also recognized that all States would 

have a decrease in bed needs or the 

maximum number of State home and 

domiciliary beds authorized. For some 

States, such decreases were due in part 

to migration of veterans out of the State. 

Moreover, the change in methodology 

itself also resulted in lower maximum 

bed numbers for individual States, but 

this was due to the fact that the previous 

methodology was no longer relevant. 

VA calculated the previous maximum 

numbers of beds per State at 4 beds per 

1,000 veterans for nursing home care 

facilities and 2 beds per 1,000 veterans 

for domiciliary care facilities. These 

formulas were established in the 1980’s 

when the use of inpatient facilities was 

increasing and the aim was to increase 

the number of beds. However, these 

formulas became significantly outdated 

in the 1990’s, when the trend went 

toward trying to keep patients in their 

homes rather than moving them to 

nursing homes. We also note that, 

although VA’s new methodology for 

determining each State’s unmet bed 

needs resulted in less total authorized 

beds than under the previous 

methodology, the reduced numbers 

were very similar across the board for 

all States, regardless of State size. VA 

does not consider the new methodology 

to be arbitrary because it more 

accurately reflects the projected bed 

needs of each State. 

One commenter asserted that this new 

methodology is an attempt by VA to 

limit its financial liability for long-term 

care for veterans. We disagree with that 

assertion. VA also has committed to 

mandatory long-term care requirements 

under provisions in the Veterans 

Millennium Health Care and Benefits 

Act, which require VA to provide, to 

certain veterans, nursing home care 

either through VA’s own nursing homes 

or contract nursing care. Furthermore, 

nothing in this rule prohibits the States 

from constructing their own State fully 

funded facility. The awards for 

construction grants that VA provides 

under this regulation should not be 

considered in isolation; rather they 

should be recognized as part of the 

entire spectrum of care VA provides. 

Provisions of the rule also allow for a 

State to request from the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs exceptions to the bed 

levels when exception is needed due to 

travel distances. Our experience has 

been that this provision, when used, 

ensures that States with rural veteran 

populations are not adversely affected 

by the provisions of this rule. 

There were a number of comments on 

the interim final rule’s inclusion of 

domiciliary care beds with nursing bed 

totals in the methodology in 

establishing the State bed limits. No 

changes have been made based on these 

comments. 

The Veterans Millennium Health Care 

and Benefits Act requires that the 

Secretary shall take into account the 

availability of beds already operated by 

the State, which will serve the needs of 

veterans that the State proposes to meet 

with its application for a grant. We do 

not believe that this requires any 

distinction between nursing and 

domiciliary beds. States that have 

participated in the State Home 

Construction Grant Program for the 

construction of domiciliary and nursing 

facilities have done so to provide care 

to an identified veteran population 

located within their respective States. A 

determination is made by the State to 

provide such care and to serve these 

veterans who have very similar care 

needs. Often, States have determined to 

build a nursing facility, a domiciliary, or 

both. In some cases, such veteran 

populations are often managed in colocated facilities, and as the care needs 

of domiciliary residing veterans 

increase, these veterans are usually 

moved into the higher level care of 

nursing home beds. VA, therefore, 

believes that such beds can and should 

be counted together when assessing the 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58878 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

total bed needs of the State. Once the 

facilities are fully constructed and 

operating, the State may take actions to 

request conversion of those beds to a 

higher or lower level of care, since both 

nursing home and domiciliary beds are 

constructed to the same VA 

construction standards. 

One commenter remarked that such 

bed limits do not address the great 

unmet nursing home needs of veterans. 

No changes were made based on this 

comment. This rule provides grants for 

those States interested in building and 

providing nursing home, domiciliary, 

and adult day health care to veterans. 

The State Home Program is an integral 

part of VA’s health care for veterans, 

which includes VA’s own nursing 

homes as well as contracted care 

through community nursing home 

providers. It is not intended to be the 

only program to address the nursing 

care of veterans. 

One commenter remarked that 

preference should be given to Vietnam 

veterans. No changes were made based 

on this comment. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 

1742(b), the States have the sole 

responsibility in managing these homes 

and thus the flexibility to determine 

certain service era preferences, if any, 

within Federal laws barring 

discrimination. The law specifically 

prohibits VA from managing the homes. 

A couple of commenters remarked 

that VA should consider funding 

assisted and supportive living care 

rather than institutional models. No 

changes were made based on this 

comment. Congress has authorized VA 

to award funds for nursing home care, 

domiciliary care or adult day health 

care. 

One commenter cited concerns about 

the square footage allotment 

requirement and remarked that VA 

should consider expanding it for 

motorized scooters and patient wheel 

chairs. No changes were made based on 

this comment. VA has long been in the 

forefront in the approval and design of 

model nursing home facilities. This rule 

and VA building requirements as well 

as other Federal laws require open 

access by wheelchair and individuals 

with such need. The current rule also 

allows for flexibility in the requirements 

in order for the State to expand its 

building plans to accommodate any 

State specific requirement, by up to 10 

percent. Even with the advent of 

motorized scooters, we believe the space 

requirements remain adequate to meet 

any additional demands placed upon 

the design for their use. 

A number of comments were received 

regarding the rule’s incorporation by 

reference of the 2000 edition of the 

National Fire Protection Association 

Life Safety Code (NFPA 101, Life Safety 

Code) and the 1999 edition of the NFPA 

99, Standard for Health Care Facilities. 

Although we received comments in 

support of the utilization of such 

reference and standards, we also 

received a comment objecting to the 

exclusiveness of the reference. No 

changes were made based on this 

comment. 

VA’s own standards are based on the 

adopted standards (2000 edition of the 

NFPA 101, Life Safety Code and the 

1999 edition of the NFPA 99, Standard 

for Health Care Facilities). VA life safety 

engineers throughout the country have 

been trained to use such standards for 

over 40 years. Other codes including the 

International Building Code (IBC) do not 

address existing buildings except under 

renovations. Since VA also adopted the 

NFPA fire codes for the State Home Per 

Diem program, it would be confusing to 

attempt to use two standards to 

determine a State’s compliance. 

One commenter cited concerns with 

the rule’s method for establishing or 

projecting nursing home bed needs for 

veterans in each State. The commenter 

suggested that the regulation fails to 

mandate the consideration of the 

availability of community nursing home 

beds in each State when determining 

the State’s projected bed needs and such 

failure has an adverse impact on the 

scarce health care resources and funds. 

No changes were made based on this 

comment. 

VA believes that the rule adequately 

requires the States to assess, through a 

comprehensive report, the feasibility 

and viability of constructing a State 

veterans home in the State. The rule 

also anticipates that the State, through 

the legislative appropriations process, 

will properly review and assess the 

viability and impact of the home in the 

community. 

A number of commenters applauded 

the rule’s flexibility in allowing a State 

to request a waiver from the bed limits 

whenever veteran populations lived 

beyond a 2-hour radius from the 

existing State veterans home. One 

commenter suggested, however, that the 

distance was far too great, and a number 

of commenters suggested that the 

exception apply to all States, including 

those with ‘‘limited’’ needs. No changes 

were made based on these comments. 

The 2-hour radius is a reasonable 

distance for both veterans and their 

families, beyond which we believe a 

hardship on their health might prevail 

and visits by their families would 

become prohibitively difficult. VA 

believes that the waiver supports the 

concerns of large rural States when 

although population levels might limit 

bed levels for the State, a waiver allows 

the State to request building grant funds 

to ensure care to veterans in all parts of 

the State. This exception applies to all 

States regardless of their unmet bed 

needs, in light of the direction given by 

the Veterans Millennium Health Care 

and Benefits Act to take into account 

travel distances for veterans and their 

families, and to fairly respond to all 

State requests. 

A couple of commenters objected to 

VA’s categorization of States as in ‘‘great 

need,’’ ‘‘significant need,’’ and ‘‘limited 

need’’ for purposes of its prioritizing 

proposed projects and asserted that 

VA’s new prioritization process is 

unfair. The commenters suggested that 

VA use a process that prioritizes 

proposed projects based on the 

percentage of each State’s unmet bed 

need, instead of based on the actual 

number of beds needed by each State. 

VA’s previous prioritization process was 

based, at least in part, on a State’s 

percentage need of unmet beds. No 

changes have been made based on these 

comments. 

The Veterans Millennium Health Care 

and Benefits Act required VA to identify 

the need for beds in each State and 

provided VA with the three categories to 

be used. Although the percentage-based 

approach is an alternative way to 

prioritize proposed projects, VA 

believes that its new prioritization 

process, which focuses on the actual 

number of beds needed by each State, is 

a reasonable approach in satisfying the 

statutory requirement of prioritizing 

proposed projects between the States. 

The actual number of beds needed by 

each State clearly reflect each State’s 

‘‘need’’ for unmet beds, as referenced by 

statute. VA believes that its new 

prioritization process may more 

effectively allocate resources and 

potentially serve more veterans 

nationally by giving priority to proposed 

projects that will serve the most 

veterans. 

During the time of the original 

analysis in 2000, ‘‘small States’’ such as 

the District of Columbia, Alaska, 

Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming, were 

at the top of the list because they had 

no State Nursing Homes. Since then, 

Alaska, Delaware and Hawaii have 

received VA State Home Construction 

grants, and their homes are under 

construction. The District of Columbia 

and Wyoming remain, by definition, in 

the ‘‘great need’’ category. VA believes 

that, with its new prioritization process, 

VA will be able to continue to serve 

both small and large States, but more 

importantly may potentially serve more 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 58879 

veterans nationally than with an 

alternative process. 

The number of unmet beds for each 

State provided clear break points for 

separating the States into the ‘‘great 

need,’’ ‘‘significant need,’’ and ‘‘limited 

need’’ categories. We have decided to 

retain the break points as follows: 

Great = 100 percent Unmet Need or an 

Unmet Bed Need of at least 2000 beds. 

Significant = 1000–1999 Unmet Bed 

Need. 

Limited = less than 1000 Unmet Bed 

Need. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains provisions 

constituting a collection of information, 

including certain new, updated, and 

revised forms, which have been 

approved by OMB in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). VA has obtained 

new OMB control number 2900–0661 

for all the VA Forms identified in 

§ 59.170 of the interim-final rule and 

has renumbered these VA grant forms to 

comply with OMB requirements. At the 

time the interim-final rule was 

published, VA awarded less than 10 

grants per year and did not require OMB 

control numbers for each form. Since 

the June 26, 2001, publication, VA has 

awarded more than 10 grants per year 

and was, therefore, required to obtain 

OMB approval for all VA grant forms. 

Accordingly, the VA grant forms have 

new VA Form numbers and references 

to the previous VA Form numbers in 

§§ 59.20, 59.60, and 59.100 of the 

interim-final rule have been changed to 

reflect the new VA Form numbers. VA 

has removed copies of the grant forms 

from § 59.170 and changed the reference 

to the Internet Website address at which 

the forms may be found to the following 

Web site addresses: ‘‘http:/www.va.gov/ 

forms/’’ for VA Forms and ‘‘http:// 

www.gsa.gov’’ for Standard Forms. VA 

believes that the forms are easily 

accessible at these Web sites. 

In addition, two new forms have been 

added to the grant requirements. VA 

Form 10–0388–2, Certification of 

Compliance with Provisions of the 

Davis-Bacon Act, was added to ensure 

that applicants comply with Federal 

wage rates. The certification on this 

form was part of the Standard Form 

424D certification, which was provided 

in the interim-final rule in § 59.170(p). 

VA Form 10–0388–14, Checklist of 

Major Requirements for State Home 

Construction/Acquisition Grants, was 

added to ensure that all grant 

requirements are met throughout the 

application process. This form is used 

by the applicants and VA to merely 

summarize the requirements in three 

other greater-detailed VA Forms (10– 

0388–1, Documents and Information 

Required for State Home Construction 

and Acquisition Grants—Initial 

Application; 10–0388–5, Additional 

Documents and Information Required 

for State Home Construction and 

Acquisition Grants Application; and 10– 

0388–13, Documents and Information 

Required for State Home Construction 

and Acquisition Grants—Post-Grant 

Requirements), which were provided in 

the interim-final rule in § 59.170(g), (h), 

and (i). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. All of 

the entities that would be subject to this 

final rule are State government entities 

under the control of State governments 

or entities under contract with State 

governments. Of the 117 State homes, 

all are operated by State governments 

except for 17 that are operated by 

entities under contract with State 

governments. These contractors are not 

small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt 

from the initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirement of 

sections 603 and 604. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

OMB unless OMB waives such review, 

as any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined and it has been determined to 

be a significant regulatory action under 

the Executive Order because it is likely 

to result in a rule that may raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

given year. This rule will have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program number and title for 

this rule is as follows: 64.005, Grants to 

States for Construction of State Home 

Facilities. 

List of Subjects 

38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Government programs—veterans, Health 

care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Homeless, 

Medical and dental schools, Medical 

devices, Medical research, Mental 

health programs, Nursing homes, 

Philippines, Reporting and record 

keeping requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

38 CFR Part 59 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Government programs—veterans, Health 

care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Homeless, 

Medical and dental schools, Medical 

devices, Medical research, Mental 

health programs, Nursing homes, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58880 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Approved: July 10, 2008. 

Gordon H. Mansfield, 

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 38 CFR parts 17 and 59, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register at 66 FR 33845 on June 26, 

2001, is adopted as a final rule with the 

following changes and with the final 

regulatory change made to § 59.50 that 

was effective on February 14, 2007 (72 

FR 6959): 

PART 59—GRANTS TO STATES FOR 

CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION OF 

STATE HOMES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 

8105, 8131–8137. 

■ 2. Amend § 59.20 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 59.20 Initial application requirements. 

(a) For a project to be considered for 

inclusion on the priority list in § 59.50 

of this part for the next fiscal year, a 

State must submit to VA an original and 

one copy of a completed VA Form 10– 

0388–1 and all information, 

documentation, and other forms 

specified by VA Form 10–0388–1 (these 

forms are available on the internet Web 

sites provided in § 59.170 of this part). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 59.60 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 59.60 Additional application 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Complete, updated Standard 

Forms 424 (mark the box labeled 

application and submit the information 

requested for an application), 424C, and 

424D (these forms are available on the 

internet Web site provided in § 59.170 

of this part), and 

(b) A completed VA Form 10–0388– 

5 and all information and 

documentation specified by VA Form 

10–0388–5 (this form is available on the 

internet Web site provided in § 59.170). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 59.100 to read as follows: 

§ 59.100 Payment of grant award. 

The amount of the grant award will be 

paid to the State or, if designated by the 

State representative, the State home for 

which such project is being carried out 

or any other State agency or 

instrumentality. Such amount shall be 

paid by way of reimbursement, and in 

such installments consistent with the 

progress of the project as the Chief 

Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended 

Care, may determine and certify for 

payment to the appropriate Federal 

institution. Funds paid under this 

section for an approved project shall be 

used solely for carrying out such project 

as so approved. As a condition for the 

final payment, the State must comply 

with the requirements of this part based 

on an architectural and engineering 

inspection approved by VA, must obtain 

VA approval of the final equipment list 

submitted by the State representative, 

and must submit to VA a completed VA 

Form 10–0388–13 (this form is available 

on the internet Web site provided in 

§ 59.170). The equipment list and the 

completed VA Form 10–0388–13 must 

be submitted to the Chief Consultant, 

Geriatrics and Extended Care (114), 

VHA Headquarters; 810 Vermont 

Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20420. 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 

8105, 8131–8137 

■ 5. Revise § 59.170 to read as follows: 

§ 59.170. Forms. 

All forms required by this part are 

available on the internet at ‘‘http:/ 

www.va.gov/forms/’’ for VA Forms and 

at ‘‘http://www.gsa.gov’’ for Standard 

Forms, or at the Veterans Health 

Administration, Room 789, 810 

Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

20420. 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 

8105, 8131–8137, Section 2, 3, 4, and 4a of 

the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as 

amended, Pub. L. 90–480, 42 U.S.C. 4151– 

4157 

[FR Doc. E8–23822 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007-1191; FRL–8382–9] 

Cymoxanil; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of cymoxanil in 

or on bulb onion subgroup 3-07A; green 

onion subgroup 3-07B; leafy greens 

subgroup 4A; leaf petioles subgroup 4B; 

cilantro leaves; and caneberry subgroup 

13-07A. The Interregional Research 

Project (IR-4) requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation 

also deletes the tolerances for caneberry 

and head lettuce. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 8, 2008. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 8, 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–2007–1191. 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: 

Barbara Madden, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6463; e-mail address: 

madden.barbara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES