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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-05 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

41,715 words·~190 min read·/register/2006/12/05/06-9546

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25038; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-4] Revision of Class E Airspace; Sheridan, WY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will revise the Class E airspace at Sheridan, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft executing a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)approach procedure at Sheridan County Airport. This action will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft executing this new procedure at Sheridan County Airport, Sheridan, WY. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, March 15, 2007. 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: Ed Haeseker, Federal Aviation Administration, Western En Route and Oceanic Area Office, Airspace Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2527. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On August 25, 2006, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise Class E airspace at Sheridan, WY, (71 FR 50376). This action would improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR)aircraft executing this new RNAV GPS approach procedure at Sheridan County Airport, Sheridan, WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The NPRM described the Wenz NDB bearings “to” the facility instead of “from” the facility, which is standard practice. This rule makes an editorial change to describe the bearings “from” the NDB. Except for this editorial change, this rule is the same as proposed in the NPRM. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E 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 revising Class E airspace at Sheridan, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV
(GPS)approach procedure at Sheridan County Airport, Sheridan, WY. 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. 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 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth. ANM WY E2 Sheridan WY [Revised] Sheridan County Airport, WY (Lat. 44°46′09″ N., long. 106°58′49″ W.) Sheridan VORTAC (Lat. 44°50′32″ N., long. 107°03′40″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-mile radius of the Sheridan County Airport, and within 4.5 miles each side of the 157° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 17.6 miles southeast of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Sheridan VORTAC 312°, 327° radials extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 10.1 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and 4.0 miles each side of the 336° bearing from the Sheridan Airport extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 15.4 miles northwest of the Airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Sheridan VORTAC 140° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 21.4 miles southeast of the VORTAC. Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ANM WY E5 Sheridan WY [Revised] Sheridan County Airport, WY (Lat. 44°46′09″ N., long. 106°58′49″ W.) Gillette VOR/DME (Lat. 44°20′52″ N., long. 105°32′37″ W.) Crazy Woman VOR/DME (Lat. 43°59′59″ N., long. 106°26′09″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of Sheridan County Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface beginning at lat. 45°15′00″ N., long. 107°30′00″ W.; to lat. 45°15′00″ N., long. 107°00′00″ W.; to lat. 45°00′00″ N., long. 106°40′00″ W.; to Gillette VOR/DME; to Crazy Woman VOR/DME; to lat. 44°00′00″ N., long. 106°45′00″ W.; to lat. 44°30′00″ N., long. 107°00′00″ W.; to lat. 45°00′00″ N., long. 107°30′00″ W.; to point of beginning. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 13, 2006. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E6-20489 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26133; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-33] RIN 2120-AA66 Change of Using Agency for Restricted Area R-2202, Big Delta, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action changes the using agency of Restricted Areas R-2202A, R-2202B, and R-2202C from “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Activity, Fort Greely, AK” to “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Center Fort Greely, AK”. The FAA is taking this action in response to a request from the United States Army to reflect an administrative title change. There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; time of designation; or activities conducted within the affected restricted areas. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, March 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by changing the using agency of R-2202A, B, and C, Fort Greely, AK, from “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Activity, Fort Greely, AK” to “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Center Fort Greely, AK”. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries; designated altitudes; or activities conducted within the restricted areas. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Section 73.22 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8M, dated January 6, 2006. 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 Department of Transportation
(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. Environmental Review The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311d., FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas. Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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. § 73.22 [Amended] 2. Section 73.22 is amended as follows: R-2202A Big Delta, AK [Amended] Under using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Activity, Fort Greely, AK” and inserting the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Center, Fort Greely, AK”. R-2202B Big Delta, AK [Amended] Under using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Activity, Fort Greely, AK” and inserting the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Center, Fort Greely, AK”. R-2202C Big Delta, AK [Amended] Under using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Activity, Fort Greely, AK” and inserting the words “U.S. Army, Commander, Cold Regions Test Center, Fort Greely, AK”. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 27, 2006. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E6-20491 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26351; Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-12] RIN 2120-AA66 Change of Controlling Agency and Using Agency for Restricted Areas R-6608A, B, and C; Quantico, VA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action changes the names of the controlling agency and using agency for Restricted Areas R-6608A, B, and C, Quantico, VA. The FAA is taking this action at the request of the U.S. Marine Corps to reflect the current organizational names. This is an administrative change that does not alter the boundaries, designated altitudes, time of designation, or activities conducted within the affected restricted areas. DATES: *Effective Dates:* 0901 UTC, January 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by changing the name of the controlling agency for Restricted Areas R-6608A, B, and C, Quantico, VA, from “FAA, Potomac Approach,” to “FAA, Potomac TRACON.” In addition, this action changes the name of the using agency for the restricted areas from “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, VA,” to “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA.” These changes are administrative only and do not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas. Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Section 73.66 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8M, dated January 6, 2006. 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 Department of Transportation 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. Environmental Review The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311d., FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas. Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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. § 73.66 [Amended] 2. § 73.66 is amended as follows: R-6608A Quantico, VA [Amended] Under Controlling agency by removing the words “FAA, Potomac Approach,” and inserting the words “FAA, Potomac TRACON;” and Under Using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, VA,” and inserting the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA.” R-6608B Quantico, VA [Amended] Under Controlling agency by removing the words “FAA, Potomac Approach,” and inserting the words “FAA, Potomac TRACON;” and Under Using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, VA,” and inserting the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA.” R-6608C Quantico, VA [Amended] Under Controlling agency by removing the words “FAA, Potomac Approach,” and inserting the words “FAA, Potomac TRACON;” and Under Using agency, by removing the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, VA,” and inserting the words “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA.” Issued in Washington, DC on November 22, 2006. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E6-20490 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-06-040] Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the SR 46 (St. Claude Avenue) bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile 6.2 East of Harvey Lock) in New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for approximately 11 consecutive hours to conduct scheduled maintenance to the drawbridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(504)671-2128. The Bridge Administration Branch of the Eighth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans has requested a temporary deviation in order to replace the riverside lower forward roller assembly for the operating strut guide of the bridge. These repairs are necessary for the continued operation of the bridge. This deviation allows the draw of the St. Claude Avenue bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile 6.2 East of Harvey Lock), to remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2006. The bascule bridge has a vertical clearance of 1 foot above high water in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows and some ships. The bridge normally opens to pass navigation an average of eight times during the deviation period. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.458(a), the draw of the bridge shall open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels. The draw shall open at any time for a vessel in distress. Normally, the draw is required to open at any time for a vessel in distress. However, the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies during the closure period. An alternate route is available to mariners by proceeding down the Mississippi River to Venice, Louisiana, crossing the Breton Sound and proceeding up the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The Coast Guard has coordinated the closure with waterway users, industry, and other Coast Guard units. It has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on vessel traffic. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: November 13, 2006. Marcus Redford, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20485 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-06-041] Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Berwick Bay, (Atchafalaya River) Morgan City, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the BNSF Railway Company Vertical Lift Span Bridge across Berwick Bay, mile 0.4, (Atchafalaya River, mile 17.5) at Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for 12 consecutive hours to conduct scheduled maintenance to the drawbridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(504)671-2128. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BNSF Railway Company has requested a temporary deviation in order to replace the railroad signal circuits of the BNSF Railway Railroad Vertical Lift Span Bridge across Berwick Bay, mile 0.4 (Atchafalaya River, mile 17.5) at Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Replacement of the signal circuits is necessary to turn the lining of signals across the bridge into a fully automatic operation so that the bridge will be in full compliance with requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration. This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2006. There may be times, during the closure period, when the draw will not be able to open for emergencies. The bridge provides 4 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position. Thus, most vessels will not be able to transit through the bridge site when the bridge is closed. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational craft including sailboats and powerboats. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: November 16, 2006. Marcus Redford, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20486 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0900; FRL-8250-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)and operating permits program revision submitted by the state of Missouri to update the ambient air quality standards, sampling methods, definitions, and common reference methods and tables. The update also includes references to implement the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> National Ambient Air Quality Standards that were finalized on July 18, 1997. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 5, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 4, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0900, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0900. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is the Part 70 operating permit program and approval process? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and operating permit program revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is the Part 70 operating permits program and approval process? The CAA requires all states to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. The purpose of the program is to consolidate all applicable CAA requirements into a single permit document issued to a source subject to the permit program. The process for EPA approval of a Part 70 program or program revision is similar to the process for approval of a SIP. Permits issued under an EPA-approved permit program are enforceable by EPA and the state. What is being addressed in this document? EPA is approving a revision to the SIP and Part 70 permits program for the state of Missouri that was state effective on February 28, 2006. The revisions include the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS that were finalized by EPA on July 18, 1997. The revision to 10 CSR 10-6.010 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) updates the ambient air quality standards table to include the Federal revision to the NAAQS, and reformatted the columns for clarity. It should be noted that, unlike many other requirements in the Missouri SIP, the NAAQS are not requirements imposed directly on sources under the CAA (although states may impose such requirements directly on sources under state law). Sources must comply with emissions limitations and standards under the CAA and the SIP, but the NAAQS are not emissions limitations and standards under the CAA. However, because the Missouri rules establish other requirements, applicable to sources, designed to protect the NAAQS ( *e.g.* , the requirement that a source may not obtain certain permits if it would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS), EPA has included Missouri's adoption of the NAAQS in the SIP to assist in implementation of the NAAQS. Chapter 10 CSR 10-6.020 (Definitions and Common Reference Tables) revises the definitions for insignificant activity, particulate matter, and adds definitions for PM <sup>2.5</sup> . Five compounds were added to the volatile organic compounds definition and minor changes were made to the table listing hazardous air pollutants (table 3), and the related footnotes. In order to maintain formatting consistent with other rules, the state added sections
(4)and
(5)to state that reporting and record keeping, and test methods are not applicable to 10 CSR 10-6.020. It should be noted that revisions made to 10 CSR 10-6.020, and specifically the clarification of the definition of “insignificant activity” also apply to Missouri's operating permits program. The revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.030 (Sampling Methods for Air Pollution sources) add EPA's Conditional Test Method 039 to determine the total PM <sup>10</sup> and PM <sup>2.5</sup> fraction of filterable particulate matter including condensibles. Two paragraphs that discussed PM <sup>2.5</sup> emissions in stack gases were combined for clarity and readability. Revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.040 (Reference Methods) add references to appendices included in the Federal regulations that specify test methods for PM <sup>2.5.</sup> Minor revisions to each of the rules were made to correct spelling, to include the most recent date of the Federal regulations, and to improve the overall readability. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and operating permit program revision been met? The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA. Finally, the submittal meets the substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR Part 70. What action is EPA taking? EPA is a approving a revision to the SIP for the state of Missouri to update the ambient air quality standards, sampling methods, definitions, and common reference methods and tables to include the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS that were finalized on July 18, 1997. EPA is also approving the revisions to the state's definitions rule as a revision to the Part 70 operating program. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing SIP which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 February 5, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 70 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 21, 2006. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. 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 AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising the entries for “10-6.010, 10-6.020, 10-6.030 and 10-6.040” to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of Plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10-6.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards 2/28/06 12/5/06 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables 2/28/06 12/5/06 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* 10-6.030 Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources 2/28/06 12/5/06 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* 10-6.040 Reference Methods 2/28/06 12/5/06 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* * * * * * * * PART 70—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Appendix A—[Amended] 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph
(s)to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs Missouri
(s)The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020, “Definitions and Common Reference Tables,” on March 13, 2006, approval effective January 4, 2007. [FR Doc. E6-20446 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 233 Tuesday, December 5, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 70] RIN 1513-AB21 Proposed Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area (2005R-413P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to expand the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California. The proposed expansion would add 88 square miles to the viticultural area to its north in Solano County, California. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed viticultural area expansion. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 70, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Expansion Petition Hestan Vineyards, LLC, of Vallejo, California, represented by Holland and Knight LLP of San Francisco, California, submitted a petition for an 88-square-mile boundary expansion that includes portions of Solano County to the north of the Carquinez Strait, and would apply to both the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area (27 CFR 9.157) and the established Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). After reviewing the petition, TTB determined that the evidence submitted in support of the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area merits rulemaking action. On the other hand, for the reasons outlined below, TTB also determined that there was not sufficient documentation to proceed with rulemaking for the proposed Central Coast viticultural area expansion. Accordingly, TTB notified the petitioner of these determinations, and the petitioner agreed to proceed with only the San Francisco Bay viticultural area expansion portion of the petition. Central Coast Viticultural Area Expansion The petitioner stated in the petition: “Since the Central Coast AVA now includes the San Francisco Bay AVA, it would stand to reason that a county in the San Francisco Bay Area that encompasses all of the attributes of the other counties included in the San Francisco Bay AVA (i.e., coastal climate, geology, etc.), should also be included in the Central Coast AVA.” (TTB notes that the petitioner's use of the “San Francisco Bay Area” name reflects a larger geographical region than that included in the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area.) The expansive geographical boundaries of the established Central Coast viticultural area include a large region of California between the Pacific Ocean coastline to the west, the foothill elevations of the Coast Range to the east, Point Conception to the south, and the Carquinez Strait to the north. TTB identified several concerns related to the lack of name association and the geographical boundaries between the San Francisco Bay area and Central Coast viticultural areas, as discussed below. The petition lacked adequate name documentation to identify the proposed expansion area as part of the Central Coast viticultural area. The petitioner relied on the Central Coast viticultural area boundary line encumbrance of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, without providing adequate, independent documentation to substantiate the “Central Coast” name usage in the proposed Solano County expansion area. Consumer confusion could result if the Central Coast viticultural area boundary line were expanded to include an area north of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The North Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30) includes a portion of the San Pablo Bay west and north shoreline. Based on petition information and USGS maps, San Pablo Bay, which adjoins San Francisco Bay to its south, provides a geographically defining landmark between the established viticultural areas known as “Central Coast,” to the east and south, and “North Coast,” to the north and west. San Francisco Bay Expansion Petition Evidence The petitioner submitted the following information in support of the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. The San Francisco Bay area is a loosely bound region that includes other bodies of water, including San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay, the petition explains. USGS maps of the region show that San Francisco Bay joins San Pablo Bay to its north. Also, the Carquinez Strait connects the San Pablo Bay on the west with Suisun Bay on the east. The petition states that the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, which is located adjacent to the north shores of San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Strait, is an area historically, economically, and socially considered to be a part of the San Francisco Bay region. With the exception of the 4,480 acres, or 7 square miles, of the Carquinez Strait waterway, the petition explains, the entire proposed expansion area is on land in western Solano County. A previous expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area was published in the **Federal Register** on June 15, 2006, at 71 FR 34522. That expansion, effective July 17, increased the viticultural area by about 20,000 acres to the east in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Name Evidence A number of Government agencies and interest groups provide services to the nine counties in the recognized San Francisco Bay area, including the proposed expansion area in Solano County, as documented in the petition. Also, the Bay Area Council's Web site as of April 12, 2005, lists its nine counties, which include Solano, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin, according to the petition. Other government agencies and interest groups using the same nine-county San Francisco Bay area parameter include the Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Bay Area Marketing Partnership, and Bay Area Economic Forum. Evidence of this usage was submitted with the petition. The City of Vallejo, in southwest Solano County and within the proposed San Francisco Bay expansion boundary, serves as a key ferry transportation hub into the City of San Francisco, the petition documents. The Vallejo ferry system, as explained on the Bay Area Water Transit authority Web site, carries thousands of passengers each week from Solano County to the City of San Francisco and back. In 1987, the State of California legislature passed a bill establishing the “San Francisco Bay Trail,” as noted on page 160 of *San Francisco Bay: Portrait of an Estuary* , by John Hart, and published by the University of California Press in 2003. Mr. Hart states that this trail system includes the Vallejo area of Solano County, which the petition notes is a part of the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area expansion. Boundary Evidence The proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area expansion area comprises an 88-square-mile area that lies northeast of the City of San Francisco and San Francisco Bay, the petition explains. The proposed boundary line of the expansion area includes portions of San Pablo Bay's shoreline, the Solano and Napa Counties boundary line, a railroad track, and an interstate highway. The proposed expansion area's northern boundary line follows the dividing line between Napa and Solano Counties and the Southern Pacific railroad track between Creston and Cordelia, as found on the USGS Cuttings Wharf and Cordelia maps. (TTB notes that the proposed expansion area boundary line coincides with various portions of the established boundaries for the North Coast, Napa Valley (27 CFR 9.23), and Solano County Green Valley (27 CFR 9.44) viticultural areas.) Distinguishing Features David G. Howell, PhD, Geologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, Deborah Harden, PhD, Geologist at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, and Robert Bornstein, PhD, Meteorologist at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, combined efforts to provide petition evidence and documentation substantiating the northerly expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. The petition addresses the commonality of distinguishing features shared by the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed northern expansion area. Geology The petition explains the similarity of geology, as a distinguishing feature, between the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed viticultural area expansion into Solano County. The Franklin Ridge landform of Contra Costa County, located in the northmost portion of the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area, according to the petition, continues northward into the proposed expansion area of Solano County. Franklin Ridge becomes known as Sulphur Mountain Ridge in Solano County, with the two ridges geologically joining beneath the Carquinez Strait, the petition states. The north-south linkage between the established and proposed portions of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area relies on the continuity of the underlying geology, the petition states. The bedrock formations, earthquake faults, landforms, and soils of northern San Francisco Bay viticultural area, according to the petition, continue north into the proposed expansion area of Solano County. The petition identifies the geological bedrock core of the proposed expansion area as Cretaceous sandstone and shale. This body of rock, the petition explains, extends northward from the Mount Diablo region in Contra Costa County into the proposed expansion area that includes parts of Solano County. Soil The two general categories of soils in the proposed expansion area are those formed in salt marshes and those formed in sandstone over shale bedrock on uplands, as described in the Soil Survey of Solano County, California, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1977. The Solano County general soil map documents that soils in salt marshes predominate in areas at a low elevation south of Vallejo. Also, the map shows that some of the soils in the predominant Joice, Reyes, Suisun, and Tamba soil series are mucks or peaty mucks. The soils on uplands in Solano County are common to other parts of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, including areas of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, the petition explains. The most prevalent soils on uplands are in the Dibble and Los Osos series, and are moderately deep soils formed in weathered sandstone and shale under climatic conditions of seasonal soil moisture. The Altamont, Gaviota, and Millsholm series are also on uplands, according to the petitioner; the Rincon series are on alluvial fans. Climate The eastward and inland movement of marine air through the Golden Gate Gap, the petition explains, dominates the climate of the land areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay and within the established viticultural area boundaries. Carquinez Strait joins San Pablo Bay at the bay's southeast corner, according to USGS maps, and receives the same marine air that cools the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, the petitioner explains. The Carquinez Strait funnels the marine air to both the north and south sides of its shoreline, according to the petition. (TTB notes that the current San Francisco Bay viticultural area's northern boundary line extends along the south shoreline of the Carquinez Strait, following the Contra Costa County northern boundary line to BM 15 on the Honker Bay USGS map.) The proposed expansion area extends northward to include all the Carquinez Strait and portions of Solano County, according to the written boundary description and maps provided with the petition. The current expansion petition provides evidence and documentation of the marine airflow, and its cooling effect, traveling north and east from the Golden Gate, through the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Carquinez Strait, into the proposed inland expansion area. Although the proposed expansion area was not included in the original San Francisco Bay AVA petition, since the filing of the original petition, additional observation sites have become available that provide a more detailed analysis of the air flow patterns in and around the Carquinez Strait. Figures obtained from a new observation site that show the typical summer afternoon flow pattern on both sides of the Carquinez Strait clearly show that the Carquinez Strait is not the northern boundary of the influence of the marine air that has entered through the Golden Gate Gap. The California Air Resources Board maps, submitted with the petition, show that the marine influence extends both north and south of the Carquinez Strait. A San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District map shows air flow through the Carquinez Strait on July 31, 2000, a typical summer day. The airflow pattern through the Carquinez Strait brings the marine influence to the north, east, and south of the waterway, according to the map. Another computerized map of the air flow, also documented on July 31, 2000, shows the marine air entering San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate Gap, then traveling through San Pablo Bay, and continuing east through the Carquinez Strait, north into Suisun Bay, and south into the Livermore Valley. The information submitted with the petition concludes that the Carquinez Strait should not be considered the northernmost boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. Marine air, which is a significant distinguishing climatic characteristic of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and region, is also significant in the proposed expansion area, according to the petition. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for viticultural area expansion in the proposed regulatory text amendment published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, which are listed below in the proposed regulatory text amendment. Impact on Current Wine Labels The proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area will not affect currently approved wine labels. The approval of this proposed expansion may allow additional vintners to use “San Francisco Bay” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should expand the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area as proposed. The currently proposed expansion area, TTB notes and petition-provided USGS maps confirm, lies in an area of southern Solano County, outside of the North Coast viticultural area boundary line. The proposed expansion area lies between the boundary lines of the North Coast and Central Coast viticultural areas. In addition to receiving comments on the issues described above, we are interested in comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. Submitting Comments Submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • *Mail:* You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • *Facsimile:* You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—
(1)Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2)Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3)Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • *E-mail:* You may e-mail comments to *nprm@ttb.gov* . Comments transmitted by electronic mail must—
(1)Contain your e-mail address;
(2)Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3)Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • *Online form:* We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml* . Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- × 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information submitted with comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulatory amendment, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendment imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.157 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(42), replacing the period with a semicolon at the end of paragraph (b)(43), adding new paragraphs (b)(44) through (b)(47), revising the introductory text of paragraph
(c)and paragraph (c)(24), redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(38) as (c)(31) through (c)(44), and adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(30), to read as follows: § 9.157 San Francisco Bay.
(b)*Approved Maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are 47 1:24,000 Scale USGS topographic maps. They are titled:
(44)Cuttings Wharf, Calif.; 1949; Photorevised 1981;
(45)Sears Point, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1968;
(46)Cordelia, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1980; and
(47)Fairfield South, Calif., 1949; Photorevised 1980.
(c)*Boundary.* The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located mainly within five counties, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa, which border the San Francisco Bay. The area also includes portions of three other counties, Solano, Santa Cruz, and San Benito, which are in the general vicinity of the greater San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area is as described below.
(24)Then proceed west-southwest along the south shoreline of the Suisun Bay and the Carquinez Strait to its intersection with Interstate 680 at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and BM 66, T3N/R2W, on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.
(25)Then proceed generally north following Interstate 680, crossing over and back on the Benicia Quadrangle map and continuing over the Fairfield South Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the Southern Pacific railroad track at Cordelia, Section 12, T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle map.
(26)Then proceed generally west along the Southern Pacific railroad track to its intersection with the Napa and Solano Counties boundary line in Jameson Canyon at Creston, Section 9, T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle map.
(27)Then proceed generally south-southeast, followed by straight west along the Napa and Solano Counties boundary line; continue straight west, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the east shoreline of Sonoma Creek slough, which coincides with the Highway 37 bridge on the Solano County side of the creek, T4N/R5W, on the Sears Point Quadrangle.
(28)Then proceed generally southeast along the north and east shorelines of San Pablo Bay, also known as the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the Breakwater line, located within the Vallejo City boundaries and 0.7 mile west-southwest of the beacon, T3N/R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(29)Then proceed 1.2 miles straight south-southwest to its intersection with the San Pablo Bay shoreline at BM 14, west of Davis Point, T3N/R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(30)Then proceed generally south along the contiguous eastern shorelines of San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay, crossing over the Richmond and San Quentin Quadrangle maps, to its intersection with the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on the Oakland West Quadrangle. Dated: November 28, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20504 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Parts 40, 41, 44, and 45 [Notice No. 69; Re: Notice No. 65] RIN 1513-AB34 Tax Classification of Cigars and Cigarettes AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: In response to an industry member request, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau extends the comment period for Notice No. 65, Tax Classification of Cigars and Cigarettes, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 2006, for an additional 90 days. DATES: Written comments on Notice No. 65 must now be received on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses— • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 65, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/regulations_laws/all_rulemaking.shtml.* An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments. You may view copies of this extension notice, Notice No. 65, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of this extension notice, Notice No. 65, and the related comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/regulations_laws/all_rulemaking.shtml.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Wade Chapman, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-927-8210; or e-mail *Linda.Chapman@ttb.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 25, 2006, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)published Notice No. 65, Tax Classification of Cigars and Cigarettes, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 62506). In that notice of proposed rulemaking, TTB requested public comment on proposed amendments to our regulations regarding the classification of cigars and cigarettes for Federal excise tax purposes. As originally published, the comment period for Notice No. 65, was scheduled to close on December 26, 2006. After publication of Notice No. 65, TTB received a request from the Cigar Association of America, Inc.
(CAA)to extend the comment period for Notice No. 65 for 90 days beyond the December 26, 2006, closing date. In its letter to TTB, CAA lists three reasons for the extension request. First, CAA notes that Notice No. 65 raises numerous complex and important issues relating to the tax classification of cigars and cigarettes and the proposed method for measuring total reducing sugars. Second, CAA states that it requires additional time to coordinate with its domestic and foreign members to consider the impact of the proposed regulatory changes on the industry and to evaluate the analytical method TTB used to measure total reducing sugars. Third, CAA notes that the December 26, 2006, deadline for comments falls over two major holidays, which will hinder its ability to collect data and comments from its members. In response to this request, TTB extends the comment period for Notice No. 65 for an additional 90 days. Therefore, comments on Notice No. 65 are now due on or before March 26, 2007. Dated: November 21, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20506 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0900; FRL-8250-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)and operating permits program revision submitted by the State of Missouri to update the ambient air quality standards, sampling methods, definitions, and common reference methods and tables. The update also includes references to implement the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> National Ambient Air Quality Standards that were finalized on July 18, 1997. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by January 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0900 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP and operating permits program revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: November 21, 2006. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E6-20445 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 2006—25453] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking requesting that the agency amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” to include belted test dummies in the rear seats of the dynamic crash tests, and to include a cargo test for occupant protection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact Christopher Wiacek, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202)366-4801, Facsimile:
(202)366-4329. For legal issues, you may contact Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202)366-5263, Facsimile:
(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Petition On August 12, 2004, the agency received a petition from Larry E. Coben of the law firm Coben & Associates, and Alan Cantor of the consulting firm ARCCA, Inc. requesting two safety amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection.” First, the petitioners requested an amendment to include belted test dummies in the rear seats of the dynamic crash tests. Second, the petitioners requested that the agency adopt an unrestrained cargo test, as defined by the United Nations under Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE)Regulation 17, “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and any head restraints.” In support of their position, the petitioners submitted test data to the agency on August 24, 2004. A. Part 1—Rear Seat Occupant Protection The first aspect of the petition requested amending the existing FMVSS No. 208 frontal barrier crash tests (or an equivalent sled test) to include new performance requirements for an assortment of belted test dummies positioned in rear seats. The petitioners recommended selecting amongst the 95th percentile male, 50th percentile male, 5th percentile female, and 6-year-old child dummy sizes, and adopting FMVSS No. 208 injury criteria for the head, neck, chest and femurs. They also recommended adopting a new method of assessing abdominal injury risk. The petitioners noted that FMVSS No. 209, “Seat belt assemblies,” FMVSS No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” and the equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 208 do not have dynamic performance requirements for rear seat restraints. The petitioners further stated that applying the same injury criteria to instrumented rear seat dummies that are applied to front seat dummies in frontal crashes is warranted, and would not cause any undue expense. B. Part 2—Unrestrained Cargo Test The second aspect of the petition requested that the agency amend FMVSS No. 208 to include an unrestrained cargo test, as specified in the European seat standard, ECE 17, and to adopt the pass/fail criteria employed in that standard. The petitioner noted that ECE 17 was adopted to ensure that vehicles maintain sufficient strength to protect occupants from displaced luggage that may be thrown into the back of vehicle seats in a frontal impact. The petitioners noted that FMVSS No. 208 (or any other standard) does not account for cargo that is regularly placed in the luggage/storage areas of passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and applicable trucks. The petitioners stated that the use of unrestrained cargo in FMVSS No. 208 tests would provide an assessment of the passive barrier that lies between the cargo compartment and rear seat occupants. II. Discussion of Part 1—Rear Seat Occupant Protection A. Data From Petitioner On August 24, 2004, the petitioners provided frontal impact crash test data using a 1995 model year Hyundai Scoupe in conjunction with their petition. 1 Frontal impact crash tests were conducted at both 48 km/h and 64 km/h with a 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy placed in the left rear seating position, restrained by a lap/shoulder belt. According to the petitioners' data, the dummy experienced injury measurements in excess of the maximum head injury measurements applicable under FMVSS No. 208 in both tests. Additionally, the dummy's chest acceleration measurement exceeded the criterion in the 48 km/h test and was nearly exceeded in the 64 km/h test. Examination of the films revealed that the 5th percentile female dummy's head contacted the dummy's knees in the 48 km/h test, and contacted the front driver seat back and later its own knees in the 64 km/h test. In the 48 km/h test, the dummy was positioned in a normal seating position as described in FMVSS No. 208; however, in the 64 km/h test, the dummy's upper torso was positioned away from the seat back and the head was tilted downward. The petitioner did not provide any information on why the dummy positioning was different in the 64 km/h test. 1 For the crash data, see the docket for this notice. B. Summary of Relevant Agency Actions The dynamic performance of front outboard seats and restraint systems in light passenger vehicles (with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,856 kilograms or less) is evaluated through dynamic crash tests in FMVSS No. 208. As the petitioner noted, rear seat belts are required to meet various component tests as prescribed in FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210, and the equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 208. Prior to 1989, only lap belts were required in rear outboard seating positions. On June 14, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 25275) that required the installation of lap and shoulder belts in rear outboard seats of passenger cars other than convertibles. NHTSA published a second final rule (54 FR 46257) on November 2, 1989 to extend the rear outboard lap/shoulder belt requirement to convertibles, light trucks, vans, and small buses, other than school buses. Over time, these rear lap/shoulder belts have been found to be 15 percent more effective than lap belts alone in all crashes, and 25 percent more effective in reducing the risk of death in frontal crashes. 2 More recently, on December 8, 2004, NHTSA published a final rule (69 FR 70910) requiring lap and shoulder belts in rear center seating positions in most passenger cars and light duty passenger vehicles. These rear center lap/shoulder belts were first required on September 1, 2005. 2 “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,” Pages 20 and 88, Evaluation Division, Plans and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, June 1999, DOT HS 808 945. NHTSA has also evaluated the merits of including child dummies in the New Car Assessment Group
(NCAP)program pursuant to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Section 14(b) of this Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine “whether to include child restraints in each vehicle crash tested under NCAP.” Two notices have been published on the agency's efforts in this area: Notice of final decision on the NCAP programs for child safety, published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 29815) on May 24, 2005, and response to comments, notice of decision for NCAP, published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 75536) on December 20, 2005. These documents discuss the agency's decision to maintain the current frontal impact test procedures while conducting the necessary research to evaluate if and how the program could be modified to include child dummies. C. Analysis of Petition NHTSA currently is continuing a research program to examine rear seat occupant protection. The program to advance rear seat occupant protection includes analytical and sled test simulations to determine advanced restraint system feasibility and improved restraint geometry in rear seats. Test dummies of different sizes are included in rear seats of frontal crash tests, when feasible. 3 The objective of the program is to examine the performance of existing rear seat restraints, assess the effectiveness of advanced rear restraint systems and evaluate the biofidelity of various anthropomorphic test devices in the rear seat. NHTSA is collaborating with various restraint and vehicle manufacturers to develop and evaluate effective restraints for the rear seat. NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations and CIREN programs also plan to conduct detailed examination of select crashes involving rear seat occupants with serious to fatal injuries. The agency will use this data to assess the dynamic performance of rear seat restraints in real world crashes. We are also studying this data to establish a correlation between testing and real world crashes. 3 Feasibility considerations include, but are not limited to: additional cost, additional timing, added weight, data acquisition capabilities, and potential interference with other aspects of the test. Implementation of the petitioners' request to amend FMVSS No. 208 at this time would be premature. As discussed in a **Federal Register** notice responding to a petition for rulemaking from Mr. James E. Hofferberth (71 FR 25130), NHTSA currently has an insufficient amount of data on child dummies in a FMVSS No. 208 crash environment to conduct a thorough crash test analysis. Also, the agency does not have sufficient research and testing that would be needed to incorporate the 95th percentile adult male dummy into the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The information provided by the petitioners gave no new insight in this area. At this point in time, the agency has concluded that further study is needed and research will continue in order to make a definitive determination on potential requirements for rear seat occupant performance. III. Discussion of Part 2—Unrestrained Cargo Test A. Additional Data From Petitioner On August 24, 2004, the petitioners provided sled test data using a model year 1995 Hyundai Scoupe in support of their petition. Tests were conducted at 48 km/h and 64 km/h following the ECE 17 protocol using unrestrained simulated luggage in the cargo area. Seat back deformation and locking mechanisms were monitored in the tests. The petitioner provided electronic video files 4 showing unrestrained cargo contact with the seat back, seat latch failure, and forward movement of the seat back during the event. 4 For the sled test data, see the docket for this notice. Reference: sled tests 24953, 24954 and 24955. B. Summary of Relevant Agency Actions FMVSS No. 207, “Seating systems,” establishes the minimum performance requirements for both the strength of seat backs and the seat attachment to the vehicle. The standard specifies that the seat restraining device shall not release or fail when the required load is applied to the seat back. Effectively, this provides occupants with some level of protection from loose cargo displaced during a crash. Alternatively, ECE 17 requires a dynamic impact test with simulated cargo. The requirement is deemed to be met if, during and after the dynamic impact test, the seat back remains in position and the locking mechanisms remain in place. However, during the test, deformation of the seat back and its fastenings is permitted provided that the forward contour of the seat back and/or head restraint does not move forward past specified limits. While FMVSS No. 207 and ECE 17 have distinct performance tests, we have no data at this time to suggest that the field-relevant performance of one approach is superior to the other. To identify the current safety problem associated with loose cargo and seat performance in vehicles that comply with FMVSS No. 207 in the current fleet, NHTSA examined real world crash data from the 2000-2004 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) where an occupant sustained an AIS 3+ injury from contact with an “interior loose object,” in a frontal crash where there is a “seat performance failure.” The NASS-CDS data collection term “interior loose object” includes any interior items that are not a direct part of the vehicle; these items are not necessarily located in the rear cargo area. A “seat performance failure” includes seat hardware failure, seat deformed by intrusion or occupant impact or other failure mechanism. We identified one case where an AIS 3+ injury was reported from contact with “interior loose objects” and there was a “seat performance failure.” We then manually reviewed the individual case file 5 for accuracy in the reporting and relevancy to the frontal crash test procedure proposed. After a careful review of the relevant case file, it was concluded that this was not an incident where loose cargo from the luggage area of the vehicle compromised the seat performance, intruded into the passenger compartment, and caused a direct injury to the occupants in a frontal crash. This is not to say that there are not anecdotal cases that occur in the real world. However, our query of five years of NASS data yielded no cases matching the above criteria. 5 NASS-CDS case reference: 2004-049-105. C. Analysis of Petition Analysis of the available real world data does not indicate that the incidences and severity of motor vehicle occupants injured from unrestrained cargo as a direct result of a seat performance failure in motor vehicle crashes is a safety problem that would warrant an amendment to the Federal standard at this time. While there may be anecdotal cases of displaced cargo intruding into the passenger compartment and injuring occupants, the agency has not been able to quantify the safety problem beyond a review of the NASS data. More research would be needed to substantiate a correlation between cargo intrusion and occupant safety resulting from seat deformation or failure. The petitioners also did not provide any field data demonstrating such a problem. Furthermore, for the agency to pursue a rulemaking adopting the ECE 17 requirement, considerable research and testing would be needed on the effectiveness of a seat back deflection measurement to reduce occupant injury and the design and cost of potential countermeasures beyond the current requirements specified in FMVSS No. 207. The petitioners did not provide such information. IV. Conclusion After carefully considering all aspects of the petitions, the agency has decided to deny them. As stated above, the agency has undertaken research in some areas of concern identified by the petitioners. Making a determination to amend the standards prior to the completion of this research would be premature. Additionally, other areas of concern identified by the petitioners would require substantial research to address. While the agency may in the future consider adding additional dummies or unrestrained cargo to its frontal crash test and/or other programs, it is not appropriate to consider rulemaking at this time. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: November 29, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-20487 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Sacramento Mountains Thistle (Cirsium vinaceum) and Initiation of 5-Year Status Review AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of 5-year status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the threatened Sacramento Mountains thistle ( *Cirsium vinaceum* ) (thistle) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Plants, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting of the thistle may be warranted. Therefore, we will not initiate a further 12-month status review in response to this petition under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. However, we are initiating a 5-year review of this species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act to consider information that has become available since we listed the species as threatened on June 16, 1987 (52 FR 22933). This will provide the public an opportunity to submit new information on the status of the species. We invite all interested parties to submit comments or information regarding this species. DATES: The finding in this document was made on December 5, 2006. To be considered in the 5-year review, comments and information should be submitted to us (see ADDRESSES section) on or before March 5, 2007. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time. ADDRESSES: Data, comments, information, or questions concerning this petition finding and 5-year review should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) directly to the Service at *thistlecomments@fws.gov* . The petition, supporting data, and comments will be made available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES above) (telephone 505-346-2525, facsimile 505-346-2542). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. “Substantial information” is defined in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.” Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned action is warranted to support a “substantial” finding; instead, the key consideration in evaluating whether or not a petition presents “substantial” information involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition. We have to satisfy the Act's requirement that we use the best available scientific and commercial information to make our decisions. However, we do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information, to the extent that they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles (such as citing published and peer reviewed articles, or studies done in accordance with valid methodologies), unless we have specific information to the contrary. Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case for delisting on its face. Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should no longer be classified as a threatened species. We make no determinations as to the currency, accuracy, completeness, or veracity of the petition. The contents of this finding summarize that information that was available to us at the time of the petition review. In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and information available in our files at the time we reviewed the petition, and we evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information contained in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. Species Information The thistle is a stout plant, 3.3 to 5.9 feet
(ft)(1 to 1.8 meters (m)) tall. Thistle stems are brown-purple and highly branched. The basal leaves are green, 12 to 20 inches
(in)(30 to 50 centimeters (cm)) long, and up to 8 in (20 cm) wide, with ragged edges. The thistle presently occurs on both the eastern and western slopes of the Sacramento Mountains in Otero County, New Mexico. The thistle occurs primarily on National Forest System lands of the Lincoln National Forest in south-central New Mexico (Service 1993, p. 3). A few occupied sites lie on the extreme southern end of the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation and a few private land inholdings within the Lincoln National Forest (Service 1993, p. 3). In this area, the thistle occurs within the mixed conifer zone, between 7,500 and 9,500 ft (2,300 and 2,900 m), in limestone substrate. The thistle is an obligate riparian species that requires saturated soils with surface or sub-surface water flow. Waters at these sites are rich in calcium carbonate that often precipitates out to create large areas of travertine (calcium carbonate) deposits, which occasionally become large bluffs or hills. Travertine deposits are the most common habitats of the thistle. On June 16, 1987, we listed the thistle as a threatened species based on threats from water development, grazing, recreation, logging, and the invasion of exotic plants (52 FR 22933). A recovery plan for the species was finalized on September 27, 1993 (Service 1993, pp. 1-23). Review of the Petition For this finding, the Service evaluated the statements and information in the petition by comparing these with information contained in our files. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be threatened or endangered or whether a listed species should be reclassified or removed from the list. The following discussion presents our evaluation of the petition, based on information provided in the petition, information available in our files, and our current understanding of the species. On April 30, 2004, we received a petition from Mr. Doug Moore, Otero County Commissioner, New Mexico, to delist the thistle as a threatened species. In response to the petitioner's request to delist the thistle, we sent a letter to the petitioner dated August 31, 2005, explaining that the Service would review the petition and determine whether or not the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting the thistle may be warranted. The petition references the June 16, 1987, final listing rule (52 FR 22933) and lists the following threats for the species:
(1)Loss of water;
(2)trampling or ground disturbance by cattle, wildlife, or humans;
(3)grazing of plants; and
(4)logging. The supporting information provided by the petitioner includes only a portion of one recent biological assessment and a portion of one recent biological opinion conducted for a USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) grazing allotment (Forest Service 2003, pp. 1, 57-68; Service 2004, pp. 1, 25-27). The petition also provides the following summary statements regarding the thistle:
(1)The range of the species is 500 percent greater than when it was listed in 1987;
(2)the known population size is 2,800 percent greater than when it was listed; and
(3)the known threats that can be managed have been virtually removed. The petitioner states that monitoring has determined that grazing and disturbance no longer threaten the species, and that logging has never impacted the thistle. The petition also cites a biological assessment prepared by the Forest Service (Forest Service 2003, pp. 41-68) that indicates the thistle's abundance and range have increased since the species was listed. Finally, the petitioner disagrees with the Recovery Plan's strategy of encouraging the State of New Mexico to adopt water law standards that recognize the need for preservation of in-stream flow to benefit plants, fish, and other wildlife (Service 1993, p. 9). The petitioner suggests that proactive watershed restoration would be a more effective strategy to insure the availability of water at the springs and bogs which provide habitat for the species. The Petitioner also suggests that the availability of water, air, and sunshine are aspects of the natural world which do not need to be guaranteed by the Service before a species can be delisted. Conservation Status Under section 4 of the Act, we may list or delist a species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment of vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the following five factors:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. This 90-day finding is not a status assessment and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Therefore, what follows below is a preliminary review of the factors affecting this species. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The June 16, 1987, listing (52 FR 22933) and subsequent recovery plan (Service 1993, pp. 4-6) list habitat destruction or alteration by domestic livestock, water development ( *e.g.* , withdrawal from springs and reservoir construction), trampling by recreationists, road maintenance, and logging as threats to the species' habitat and range. The thistle also has been impacted by off-road vehicles (ORVs), motorcycles, road grading, and other activities (Service 1993, pp. 4-6; Forest Service 2004, pp. 625-629). Information Provided in the Petition The petitioner maintains that loss of water may threaten the thistle, but suggests that the availability of water, air, and sunshine are aspects of the natural world which do not need to be guaranteed by the Service. The petitioner notes that proactive watershed restoration would be more appropriate than acquiring water rights for the thistle. The petitioner also states that logging has not impacted the thistle because forest management discourages these activities near areas considered habitat (springs and bogs). Finally, the petitioner maintains that the plant's known population size is 2,800 percent greater than when it was listed. Evaluation of Information in the Petition We agree with the petitioner that reduction in the availability of water could threaten the species. As noted, the thistle is an obligate riparian species that requires surface or immediately sub-surface water flows. The loss of water can be:
(1)Naturally caused due to drought conditions;
(2)caused by other factors that may cause a spring to go dry ( *i.e.* , rerouting of underground channels); or
(3)caused by human impacts such as spring development or loss of water flow to an occupied site through diversion by roads or trails (Service 1993, pp. 4-5; Service 2004, p. 35). Since 1999, New Mexico has been in a drought (Piechota *et al.* 2004, pp. 303-305); however, the length or severity of the current drought cycle is not known, and the Southwest may be entering a period of prolonged drought (McCabe *et al.* 2004, pp. 4138-4140). Droughts of the 20th century are minor in comparison to droughts in the last 2000 years. For example, droughts prior to 1600 are characterized by longer duration (multidecadal) and greater spatial extent than droughts of today (Woodhouse and Overpeck 1998, pp. 2698-2706; Piechota *et al.* 2004, pp. 303-305). It is unknown how the springs in the Sacramento Mountains would respond to extended drought and an increase in the level of water withdrawals ( *e.g.* , groundwater pumping). It is likely that the seasonal distribution of yearly precipitation also plays a role in water availability for the thistle. Spring desiccation at occupied sites has led to a reduction in the number of individual plants, and in some cases, caused a loss of all plants at previously occupied sites (Forest Service 2003, pp. 35-36). We will consider the petitioner's suggestion for alternative methods of providing water in future recovery planning efforts. We generally agree with the statement that logging does not currently threaten the thistle. At present, the Forest Service applies a minimum 200 ft (60 m) protective buffer around thistle occurrences during forest management activities (Service 2002, p. 3; Service 2004, pp. 4-13; Service 2005a, p. 3). Still, the petition does not provide substantial scientific information that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range no longer threatens the thistle. Information in our files indicates that at the time of listing, the range of the thistle consisted of approximately 20 known population areas (within 6 large canyon drainages) containing an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 sexually reproducing individuals (52 FR 22933; Service 1993, p. 2). Presently, the thistle occurs in small, dense populations at 86 sites on the Lincoln National Forest with an estimated population of 350,000 to 400,000 plants (Service 2005b, pp. 695-697). The extent of occupied sites and plant numbers fluctuates with rainfall and the amount of surface flow available. Populations generally expand in years of higher spring flows, with plants establishing farther downstream and scattered along the springs' outflow creeks. In years of lower flow, populations contract back to the wetter areas around the springs (Forest Service 2004, pp. 625-629). As discussed above, information in our files indicates that the petitioner's claim that the number of populations and range of the thistle are greater than what was known in 1987 is reliable and accurate. However, the petitioner has presented no information or analysis to suggest these increased numbers would indicate that listing is no longer warranted, nor to suggest that threats under Factor A no longer impact the species. Impacts to habitat remain substantial factors impacting the long-term viability of this species. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition provides no information addressing this factor. The original listing did not cite this factor as significant. C. Disease or Predation Information Provided in the Petition The petition indicates that herbivory does not adversely affect the species because vigorous growth of thistle was observed in areas following heavy use. Evaluation of Information in the Petition The original listing suggested the amount of predation by herbivores was minimal (52 FR 22933, June 16, 1987). Livestock can trample vulnerable seedlings, rosettes, and flowering stalks, as well as damage travertine and soft substrates in occupied and potential habitat (Thomson 1991, pp. 44-52; Service 2004, pp. 62-63). The petition includes information indicating that livestock use of occupied habitat results in trampling and herbivory, but reduced livestock stocking levels and fencing around springs has led to large increases in thistle abundance (Forest Service 2003, pp. 53-56; Service 2004, p. 35; Service 2005b, pp. 698-703). For example, more than 10-fold increases have been observed in some areas following the construction and maintenance of exclosures (Forest Service 2003, pp. 53-56). Grazing exclosures have protected thistles from trampling and herbivory, and allowed populations inside the exclosures to expand outside fenced areas (Forest Service 2003, pp. 53-56). Forty of the 86 population sites located within the Lincoln National Forest have been fenced to exclude livestock or are considered to be inaccessible (Service 2005b, p. 698). Exclosures total approximately 120 ha (290 ac), protecting occupied thistle habitat from the negative impacts associated with livestock use (Service 2005b, p. 698). Although thistles have been documented to recover within a few weeks from light grazing ( *i.e.* , grazing impacting less than 10 percent of known plants), livestock grazing on the thistle's flowering stalks and the leaves of rosettes can contribute to the loss of the entire reproductive output of the plant (Forest Service 2003, p. 53, 59; Service 2005b, p. 697). The petitioner did present evidence that threats from grazing can be reduced by using exclosures but did not present evidence that grazing no longer is a threat to the species. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition does not discuss the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms. The original listing did not cite this factor as significant except to briefly mention that take was prohibited by existing Forest Service regulations and that no other State and Federal regulations protected the species. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The petition does not discuss other natural or manmade factors. The original listing discussed the impacts of livestock grazing on range and the impacts of competition from introduced exotic species. As livestock grazing was also discussed under Factor C in the original listing, the petition's discussion of this issue and our response is covered under Predation above. Finding We have reviewed the petition and evaluated the information in relation to other pertinent literature and information available in our files. The thistle's population numbers and range are greater today than at the time of the June 16, 1987, listing. The petitioner states the threats are no longer significant, and requested that we delist the species. However, the petition does not analyze any new scientific information in relation to the five factors we must consider before proposing to delist a species. In addition, the petitioner includes very little detailed justification for the suggested delisting of the thistle, does not provide information regarding the status of the species over a significant portion of its range, does not describe or analyze how the threats relate to past or present numbers and distribution of the thistle, and includes only a small amount of supporting documentation. After this review and evaluation, we find the petition does not present substantial information to indicate that delisting the thistle may be warranted at this time. 5-Year Review Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our initiation of a 5-year review for the threatened thistle. Why Is a 5-Year Review Conducted? Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act, to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants (50 CFR 17.12) (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened (downlisted), or from threatened to endangered (uplisted). The 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are requesting submission of any new scientific and commercial data on the thistle. Considering the best scientific and commercial information available, the Service will recommend whether or not a change is warranted in the Federal classification of the thistle. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking. As part of our 5-year review, we will ensure that the information used is complete, accurate, and consistent with the requirements of the Act, the Service's Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act, published in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service. What Information Is Considered in the Review? A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since we listed the species on June 16, 1987 such as:
(A)Species biology, including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; ( B) habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C)conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species;
(D)threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How do we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened?”); and
(E)other new information, data, or corrections, including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and improved analytical methods. How Is the Sacramento Mountains Thistle Currently Listed? Under the Act, the Service maintains Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant species (Lists) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Amendments to the Lists through final rules are published in the **Federal Register** . The Lists are also available on our Internet site at *http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html* . The Sacramento Mountains Thistle ( *Cirsium vinaceum* ) is listed as threatened, with an historic range of U.S.A. (New Mexico), in the family Asteraceae. It does not have designated critical habitat, and no 4(d) special rules apply to this plant. Definitions Related to This Notice The following definitions are provided to assist those persons who contemplate submitting information regarding the species being reviewed:
(A)*Species* includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate, which interbreeds when mature;
(B)*Endangered* means any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range;
(C)*Threatened* means any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened? Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
(A)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. What Could Happen as a Result of This Review? If we find that there is new information concerning the Sacramento Mountains thistle, indicating a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following:
(a)Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered (uplist); or
(b)remove the species from the List (delist). If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted, then the thistle will remain on the List under its current threatened status. Public Solicitation of New Information We request any new information concerning the status of the Sacramento Mountains thistle. See “What Information Is Considered in the Review?” heading for specific criteria. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. If you wish to submit information for the 5-year review, you may submit information to the Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address under the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this notice is available upon request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary authors of this rule are the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office staff (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 14, 2006. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-20317 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Tricolored Blackbird as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the tricolored blackbird ( *Agelaius tricolor* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the tricolored blackbird may be warranted. Therefore, we will not be initiating a status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the tricolored blackbird or its habitat at any time. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 5, 2006. You may submit new information concerning this species for our consideration at any time. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846. New information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species may be submitted to us at any time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor or Arnold Roessler, Listing Branch Chief of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ), by telephone at
(916)414-6600, or by facsimile to
(916)414-6712. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published in the **Federal Register** . This finding summarizes information included in the petition and information available to us at the time of the petition review. A 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. Substantial information is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). Previous Federal Action In 1990, the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)added the tricolored blackbird to its list of Bird Species of Special Concern. In 1991 the Yolo Chapter of the National Audubon Society submitted a petition to the Service and to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the tricolored blackbird as a threatened or endangered species. Researchers (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, p. 7) working on the species in 1992 found that the population had increased from the late 1980s; thus, the petitioners withdrew their petition based on new information that the population numbers had increased. The Service included this species as a candidate (Category 2) for Federal listing as either threatened or endangered in the 1991 and 1994 Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR)(59 FR 58981, p. 58990, issued November 15, 1994). Category 2 status included those taxa for which information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule. In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996, the Service announced a revised list of plant and animal taxa that were regarded as candidates for possible addition to the List of Threatened and Endangered Species (61 FR 7595). The revised candidate list included only former Category 1 species. All former Category 2 species were dropped from the list in order to reduce confusion about the conservation status of these species, and to clarify that the Service no longer regarded these species as candidates for listing. Since the tricolored blackbird was a Category 2 species, it was no longer recognized as a candidate species as of the February 28, 1996, CNOR. The tricolored blackbird is now considered a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002). This designation is a result of mandates required through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which in part requires the Service to identify nongame migratory bird species that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Act. One of the goals of identifying species of conservation concern is to draw attention to the species in greatest need of conservation action and to focus funding and efforts on conserving the species and preclude the need for listing. On April 8, 2004, we received a petition to list the tricolored blackbird as a threatened or endangered species from the Center for Biological Diversity (Center for Biological Diversity 2004). The petitioner also requested an emergency listing of the species. The submission clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information of the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In our May 25, 2004, response letter to the petitioner, we said that we had reviewed the petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that because of other court-ordered listing and critical habitat actions and settlements, we would not be able to otherwise address the petition to list the tricolored blackbird at that time, but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed. On July 15, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue filed by the Center for Biological Diversity for lack of response to the petition to list the tricolored blackbird. On February 13, 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton et al.* , No. C-06-0928), for our failure to issue a mandatory 90-day finding on the petition to list the tricolored blackbird. On May 11, 2006, we reached an agreement with the plaintiff to complete the 90-day finding by December 6, 2006, and if substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by October 18, 2007. This notice constitutes the 90-day finding for the April 8, 2004, petition to list the tricolored blackbird. Species Information Description and Taxonomy The tricolored blackbird ( *Agelaius tricolor* ) is a medium-sized blackbird species in which males and females differ in plumage, size, and behavior. Adult male plumage is entirely black with a blue gloss in full sunlight. Adult males also have white and red wing plumage, are generally larger than females, and perform a display when breeding (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, pp. 1, 10). Immature male plumage is duller black than adult male plumage and is mottled with gray, eventually becoming mostly dull black with mixed black shoulder patch (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 2). Adult female plumage is primarily black, with grayish streaks. The chin and throat are relatively whitish, rarely with faint pinkish or peach wash and the shoulder patch is small and reddish. Immature female plumage is similar to that of the adult female, except the reddish shoulder patch is absent (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 2). Individuals range from 18 to 24 centimeters
(cm)(7 to 9 inches (in)) in length, and from 40 to 70 grams
(g)(1 to 2 ounces (oz)) in body mass, depending on gender and season (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 2). The tricolored blackbird is a highly colonial species and forms the largest breeding colonies of any North American passerine (perching) bird species (Orians and Collier 1962, p. 450; Cook and Toft 2005, p. 74). Breeding colonies can attract thousands of birds to a single site. During a 1931-1936 study, Neff (1937, pp. 75, 76) described locating a colony of tricolored blackbirds in 1934 that was estimated to have more than 200,000 nests. If we take the number of nests reported, and multiply by 1.5 (mean estimated sex ratio of 2 females per male), we can calculate an estimated number of breeding adults (Orians 1961a, pp. 300, 308). Using this calculation, we estimate that Neff (1937, pp. 75, 76) documented about 300,000 breeding adults in the one colony. However, a breeding colony can also contain as few as six nests (about nine breeding adults), which Neff (1937, p. 79) described finding in 1932 in Solano County. The highly synchronized and colonial breeding behavior of the tricolored blackbird may have adapted to exploit a changing environment where the locations of secure nesting habitat and plentiful food supplies were variable from year to year (Orians 1961a, pp. 297, 305, 306; Orians and Collier 1962, p. 456; Payne 1969, p. 9). Habitat Breeding Tricolored blackbirds have three basic requirements in selecting a breeding colony site:
(1)Open and accessible water;
(2)a protective nesting substrate, such as flooded, spiny, or thorny vegetation; and
(3)a suitable foraging area within a few kilometers of the nesting site to provide adequate food such as insects (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, p. 25; Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 4). Neff (1937, pp. 67, 73) documented that the majority of tricolored blackbird breeding colony sites he observed were in marsh habitat dominated with cattails ( *Typha* spp.) or bulrushes (tules) ( *Schoenoplectus* spp. and *Scirpus* spp), or both. Neff (1937, p. 78) also stated that, while cattail and bulrushes were favored nesting substrates for the species, there was a surprising adaptability in the nest sites chosen. Vegetation such as barley ( *Hordeum* spp.), mustard ( *Brassica* nigra), blackberries ( *Rubus* spp.), thistles ( *Cirsium* and *Centaurea* spp.), nettles ( *Urtica* sp.), and willows ( *Salix* spp.) were used as nesting substrate, even when seemingly available cattail and bulrush marshes were nearby. These observations led Neff to conclude that marshes were not necessary for the continued existence of the tricolored blackbird, although he could not determine if there had been a change in habitat preference during the history of the species (Neff 1937, p. 78). In recent decades many colonies of breeding tricolored blackbirds have been found to use nesting substrates such as giant cane ( *Arundo* donax), safflower ( *Carthamus tinctorius* ), tamarisk ( *Tamarix* spp.), mule fat ( *Baccharis salicifolia* ), Fremont cottonwood ( *Populus fremontii* ), California ash ( *Fraxinus latifolia* ), Himalayan blackberries ( *Rubus discolor* ), and wheat ( *Triticum* spp.) (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 5). The species has also been found in silage and grain fields in the San Joaquin Valley (Collier 1968, pp. 20, 21). Dairies and feedlots have been recently documented as habitat components for many tricolored blackbirds. In 1994, approximately 55 percent of all observed breeding colonies were associated with dairies (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, pp. 5, 64). In some colonies, water source, nesting substrate, and foraging area were all available under the management of a single dairy operation. Hamilton (1998, p. 218) extensively studied the breeding season movements of tricolored blackbirds in the Central Valley of California, from 1994 to 1997. Hamilton (1998, p. 218) concluded from his data that tricolored blackbirds nest again in the same year at different localities, a pattern called itinerant breeding. Initiation of nesting in tricolored blackbirds occurs in late March to early April throughout California, but primarily in the San Joaquin Valley. Nesting occurs again in May to June in the Sacramento Valley and foothill rice growing areas (Hamilton 1998, pp. 223, 224; Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 4). Subsequent nesting efforts for tricolored blackbirds at some colonies may result in producing as many fledglings as the initial effort, but the usual nesting success is only a fraction of the initial effort (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 11). Foraging Tricolored blackbirds rapidly exploit any locally abundant insect prey, including grasshoppers (Orthoptera), beetles and weevils (Coleoptera), caddis fly larvae (Trichoptera), moth and butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera) (Crase and DeHaven 1978, p. 257), dragonfly nymphs (Odonata), and lakeshore midges (Diptera), as well as grains, snails, and small clams (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 6). Tricolored blackbird foraging habitat during all seasons includes dry seasonal pools, pastures, rice fields, feedlots, dairies, and agricultural fields that are continuously mowed, such as alfalfa. The species is also known to forage in other areas, such as grasslands, marsh borders, and scrub, and saltbrush ( *Atriplex* spp.), but rarely utilizes typically weed free areas such as vineyards, intensely managed orchards, and row crops (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 5). Nesting tricolored blackbirds usually forage within 5 kilometers
(km)(3 miles (mi)) of the breeding colony site (Orians 1961b, p. 299). However, Beedy and Hamilton (1997, p. 5) observed tricolored blackbirds foraging up to 13 km (8 mi) from the breeding colony. Orians (1961a, p. 305) explained that the colonial structure of the tricolored blackbird is very energy demanding when compared to a similar species such as the red-winged blackbird, due to the large amount of energy expended while flying to and from distant feeding sites while providing forage for young. Food that can be rapidly exploited at the foraging site needs to meet the high energy requirement of the tricolored blackbird. Orians and Collier (1962, pp. 456-458) stated that because of the tricolored blackbird's high energy requirement, the species has an unpredictable breeding distribution and in unfavorable years has lower reproductive success than the red-winged blackbird. The presence of abundant and easily available food is a requirement for a successful tricolored blackbird colony and breeding location, and colony size can vary year to year depending on food availability and other environmental conditions (Orians 1961a, p. 308). Range and Distribution The tricolored blackbird is largely native to California, where more than 95 percent of the population occurs. Neff (1937, p. 63) described the range of the tricolored blackbird as largely endemic to the lowlands of California, west of the Sierra Nevada, but also sparsely occurring in southernmost Oregon and northwestern Baja California. The elevational range of the tricolored blackbird was documented by Neff (1937, p. 80) as going from sea level in San Diego and Santa Cruz Counties to about 1,200 meters
(m)(3,937 feet (ft)) at Klamath Lake, Oregon. High-elevation colonies have been found in California at 1,158 m (3,800 ft) near Tehachapi, Kern County (Collier 1968, pp. 9, 10). DeHaven *et al.* (1975, p. 171) stated that the overall geographic range of the species had not changed very much in the past 30 years, and that colonies were still found in southern Oregon through Shasta County, California, along the coast from Sonoma County, throughout the Central Valley, and south to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Sparse colonies have also been documented in Washington and Nevada (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). United States *California.* Active tricolored blackbird breeding colonies have been recorded in 46 counties in California since the 1980s, with the largest colonies being observed in the Central Valley (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). The species currently breeds west of the Cascade Range, into the foothills east of the Sierra Nevada, north in Honey Lake basin in Lassen County, and in marshes of the Klamath basin in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties. The species also breeds from Humboldt to Shasta Counties, continuing south to southwestern San Bernardino County, western Riverside County, and western and southern San Diego County (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). *Oregon.* The most reoccurring breeding colonies in Oregon occur in southern Klamath and southern Jackson Counties. A few other isolated breeding occurrences have been documented in northeastern Multnomah County, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in Wheeler County, Umatilla County, and Lake County in southern Oregon. Tricolored blackbird breeding colonies in Oregon range from dozens to a few thousand breeding adults (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3; Marshall *et al.* 2003, pp. 578-580). *Washington.* A small breeding colony was reported in Grant County in 1998, the first recorded observation for the State (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). Since 1999, the species has been recorded every month, except during the month of August, in Adams County (Seattle Audubon Society Web site 2006). A small breeding colony was discovered along Crab Creek, Grant County in 1998. In 2005, an additional larger colony was recorded near Texas Lake in Whitman County (Seattle Audubon Society Web site, 2006). *Nevada.* The first recorded breeding colony of tricolored blackbirds was documented in 1996, in Carson Valley, Douglas County, in western Nevada (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). More recent observations have found a recurring colony in a small freshwater marsh in the Carson Valley that is not known to exceed 20 breeding pairs of tricolored blackbirds per year (Floyd *et al.* 2006). Mexico *Baja California.* Tricolored blackbirds breed primarily in emergent marsh from the central and western portions of Baja California Norte, south to El Rosario, Mexico (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3; Hamilton 2006). Tricolored blackbird breeding colonies on Baja range from a handful of breeding adults to a few thousand, with very few birds being observed in winter months (Erickson 2006). Winter Range In the winter, tricolored blackbirds reside within a portion of their breeding range, with concentrations in coastal areas such as Monterey, Marin, Sonoma, and Santa Cruz Counties, and in and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in California (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). Some small populations may remain during the winter within Oregon, Nevada, other portions of California, and Baja California, Mexico (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 3). Population Studies Population studies on tricolored blackbirds began with the studies of Neff, who conducted observations on the species from 1931 through 1936 covering portions of the range (Neff 1937, p. 62). Location and level of survey effort varied from year to year. Neff (1937, pp. 61-80) found up to 491,000 nests and an estimated 737,000 breeding birds in 1934 within the Sacramento Valley. While completing life history studies in Colusa and Yuba Counties, Orians (1961a, p. 285, 286, 297) located a colony in 1960 with more than 100,000 nests (estimated 150,000 breeding birds) in Colusa County, and several other colonies from 1957 through 1960 which contained nearly 100,000 nests each. Orians (1961a, p. 309) stated that tricolored blackbirds were in no threat of immediate extinction and that their ecology led them to be highly adaptable birds. DeHaven *et al.* (1975 p. 166) completed a population survey in each breeding season (April-June) from 1969 through 1972. DeHaven *et al.*
(1975)estimated the population size of tricolored blackbird colonies using either of two methods:
(1)Counting the number of breeding birds, or
(2)Counting nests to estimate the number of breeding birds. In 1969 and 1970, the surveys were concentrated in the Central Valley, but there were also reports from Riverside and Siskiyou Counties (DeHaven *et al.* 1975, p. 166). In 1969, an estimated 181,000 breeding birds were located in the 19 counties surveyed. In 1970, an estimated 84,850 breeding birds were located in the 19 counties surveyed. In 1971, surveys attempted to include the entire breeding range, except Baja California, from San Diego to southern Oregon. An estimated 167,540 breeding birds were reported from 24 counties in California and Oregon. In 1972, an estimated 97,850 breeding birds were reported from 14 counties from the northern San Joaquin valley through to southern Oregon (DeHaven *et al.* 1975, pp. 169, 170, 177). DeHaven *et al.* (1975, p. 179) concluded the population had declined compared to the surveys conducted by Neff in the 1930s. In 1994, the National Audubon Society, CDFG, the Service, University of California at Davis (UCD), and experienced volunteers initiated a one-day, rangewide population census in California of the tricolored blackbird (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, pp. 12, 13). Nearly all areas of the species' range were surveyed (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, p. 7). The survey was conducted from April 22 through April 24, 1994, with the assumption that the minimum number of birds entering the 1994 breeding season would be documented (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, pp. 14, 15). Census participants located an estimated 324,621 breeding birds across the range. This number was significantly higher than estimates of between 84,850 to 181,000 breeding birds reported by DeHaven *et al.* (1975). In 1997, a CDFG-coordinated population survey was conducted following the methods in Hamilton *et al.*
(1995)(Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p.13). On April 27, 1997, census participants located an estimated 217,696 breeding tricolored blackbirds as compared to an estimated 324,621 breeding birds in 1994. In 2000, the Service sponsored a population estimate survey, which was coordinated by UCD and the California Audubon Society between April 21 and 24, 2000 (Hamilton 2000). The 2000 survey attempted to:
(1)Locate all tricolored blackbird colonies throughout their current (April 21-24, 2000) distribution in California;
(2)Estimate their numbers; and
(3)Determine the outcome of their nesting activity (Hamilton 2000, pp. 7-8). As in past surveys in 1994 and 1997, focus on a particular date avoided counting birds twice as they moved to different areas during the breeding season. Approximately 153,995 breeding birds were located throughout California during the April census (Hamilton 2000, p. 27). Hamilton (2000, p. 8) stated that this population estimate represented an uneven portion of the species' breeding range, because intensively farmed agricultural areas in the Central Valley are seldom surveyed, and as a result, colonies are likely not located. In 2004, a survey was conducted in the Central Valley and four counties outside the Central Valley (Siskiyou, Santa Clara, Monterey, and Riverside) from April 16 to April 19, 2004 (Green and Edson 2004, p. 23). The goal of the 2004 survey was to visit all historical breeding colonies in the Central Valley where 2,000 or more birds were previously found. Of the 184 historic colony sites surveyed (out of 216 historic records), 28 sites surveyed supported active colonies (Green and Edson 2004, p. 25). Although no formal breeding population estimate was made for 2004, Green and Edson (2004, pp. 25, 27) reported that colony sizes recorded in 2004 were between 5 and 102,000 breeding adults. Hamilton (2004, p. 32), using his own data and data collected by Green and Edson (2004), estimated that 223,069 young fledged from the entire breeding season in 2004 (Hamilton 2004, p. 39). Approximately 97,733 of the 223,069 fledged from a colony on Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR)of an estimated 136,000 breeding birds (Hamilton 2004, p. 38). This colony is the largest documented since the 1960s. In 2005, Hamilton and Meese (2006, p. 6), using the same methods as in the 1994, 1997, and 2000 surveys, estimated 260,000 breeding birds in the population. Threats Analysis Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)Disease or predation;
(D)Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the tricolored blackbird as presented in the petition and other information available in our files at the time of the petition review may pose a concern with respect to the species' survival such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. For the five-factor threats analysis, we have included the information submitted by the petitioner in its entirety for each factor, and then included our evaluation of the information provided by the petition and our evaluation of other information available to us regarding threats to the species. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range Information Provided by the Petitioner Destruction of Native Habitats The petitioner claims that loss and degradation of native breeding habitat for the tricolored blackbird threaten the species and have led to a significant decline in the overall population size throughout its range. The petitioner cites the studies conducted in the 1930s (Neff 1937) to support this claim. The population studies conducted by Neff (1937, p. 77) state that many favorable habitats of the tricolored blackbird, including emergent vegetation growth, have been destroyed by reclamation, drainage, dredging, reservoir construction, and clearing of marshes and canals. According to the petition, only 560,000 acres
(ac)(226,624 hectares (ha)) of the original 4 million ac (1.6 million ha) of wetlands in the Central Valley still existed by 1939, and by the mid 1980s only 243,000 ac (98,339 ha) of wetlands remained (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, pp. 10, 11). The petition further states that native perennial grasslands have been reduced by more than 99 percent in the Central Valley and surrounding foothills of California (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 11). The petition claims that the remaining marsh nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds has been reduced to small isolated patches, and these patches support high concentrations of tricolored blackbird predators (predation is addressed under Factor C, below). The petition also discusses the loss of breeding habitat at sites where colonies once occurred, such as in Yolo County during the 1930s. Colonies were not re-located due to little or no habitat remaining during subsequent studies between 1969 and 1972 (DeHaven *et al.* 1975, p. 179). Colony Destruction by Agricultural Activities The petition cites a white paper and briefing statement (USFWS 2000, p. 1) to claim that tricolored blackbirds nest in grain silage fields at the same time that forage is harvested for optimum moisture content. The petition asserts that harvesting of grain silage causes nest destruction and direct mortality and further claims that this threatens most of the remaining breeding population of the species. In addition, the petition cites Beedy and Hamilton (1997, p. 17) to support the claim that many agricultural areas within the range of the tricolored blackbird have been converted to urban uses and that the urbanization of agricultural lands will continue to result in loss of habitat used by the tricolored blackbird. The petition states that tricolored blackbirds have been adaptive in their choice of nesting substrates and have shown an increasing trend towards use of upland substrates for nesting since the 1930s (Cook and Toft 2005, p. 75). The petition also states that use of silage fields at dairies is a relatively recent phenomenon and is a primary nest site selection substrate (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, pp. 4, 18; Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 5). The petition provides data compiled from various surveys that provide examples of recent breeding failures because of silage harvest. The petition concedes that the list is not complete, and states that the concentration of most of the tricolored blackbird reproductive effort into a few large colonies that are selecting grain silage as a nesting substrate has greatly increased the risk of extinction should the annual destruction of such a large proportion of nests continue unabated (Cook and Toft 2005, p. 85). Destruction of Other Suitable Upland Breeding Substrates and Surrounding Habitats The petition claims that more recent important nesting substrates include agricultural fields (especially grain silage) and Himalayan blackberry (DeHaven *et al.* 1975, pp. 171, 172; Hamilton *et al.* 1995, p. 25; Cook 1996, pp. 23, 24). The petition claims that the lack of protection and loss of non-native nesting substrates such as Himalayan blackberry, thistle, and prickly lettuce are a threat to the tricolored blackbird. These non-native nesting substrates occur on private property and are often subject to removal. The petition states that Himalayan blackberry supports the highest density of nesting tricolored blackbirds among all other substrates, and that reproductive success is higher than in other commonly used substrates such as emergent marsh and silage (Cook and Toft 2005, pp. 85-86). Curtailment of the Species' Range The petitioner contends that the loss of wetland and grassland habitats has led to tricolored blackbirds remaining in a few large but isolated population centers. However, the petitioner does not claim that the range of the species has declined significantly. The petition claims that the species is found throughout its former range, including small populations in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada, but that few if any reports of tricolored blackbird nesting have been confirmed since 1999. Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Information Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review Destruction of Native Habitats The petitioner cited Neff (1937, p. 77) and Beedy and Hamilton (1997, pp. 10, 11) to support the claim that there has been significant native habitat loss for the tricolored blackbird. The petition claims this is a threat to the species and that by 1939, 86 percent of native marsh habitat had been reduced in the Central Valley. We agree with the petitioner that wetland loss has occurred for many decades in the Central Valley of California, resulting in loss of tricolored blackbird habitat. However, our review of the literature found that while Neff (1937, pp. 78-79) does discuss that habitat loss had occurred prior to and during his studies from 1931 to 1936, he did state that all of the threats to the species during his studies, such as human activities, predators, weather, or other factors, had only minimal impact on the species. Further, Neff (1937 p. 78) stated that tricolored blackbirds showed surprising adaptability in their choice of nesting substrates, even when seemingly favorable native wetland marshes were available, and that tricolored blackbirds were nesting in almost every county in which they had nested during the period 40-70 years prior to his studies (approximately 1867 to 1897). Furthermore, Orians (1961a, p. 309) stated that Neff's (1937, p. 62) studies were initiated due to the concern that tricolored blackbirds may not adapt well to conditions such as water drainage and conversion of grasslands to cultivation. Orians (1961a, pp. 309, 310) stated that tricolored blackbirds were not in danger of immediate extinction, but that they were highly adaptable in their choice of nesting substrate and in utilizing the abundant food supply of insects in agricultural lands of the California Central Valley. Because of the species' apparent ability to utilize a range of habitat types, we do not believe that historic habitat losses have been demonstrated to be a substantial threat to the species. DeHaven *et al.* (1975, pp. 175, 176, 179) also state that suitable nesting habitat for the tricolored blackbird had been lost in some local areas. However, they also state that these local losses in habitat have not contributed significantly to any overall population decline of the species, and that tricolored blackbirds leave many apparently suitable nesting sites unused, likely because of yearly food availability and water supply and other potentially unknown factors. DeHaven *et al.* (1975, pp. 166-180) stated that more research was needed to help isolate a cause for the apparent decline from 1969 to 1972, as compared to Neff's (1937, pp. 66, 67) population estimates from 1931 to 1936. Because no complete surveys were conducted between 1937 and 1969, it is difficult to draw conclusions. Based on the limited number of surveys during this time period, it is possible that no decline did occur, and that population numbers are within a range of variability that would be expected for this species. As stated earlier in the Population Studies section, status surveys for tricolored blackbirds began with the studies of Neff from 1931 to 1936 (Neff 1937, pp. 61-81), where Neff estimated between 95,000 and 737,000 breeding birds for the 5-year timeframe. DeHaven *et al.* (1975, pp. 166-180) estimated a rangewide population of between 84,850 and 181,000 breeding birds between 1969 and 1972. More recent surveys estimated 324,621 breeding birds in 1994; 217,696 in 1997; 162,000 in 2000; and 260,000 in 2005. Based on these population estimates, we do not agree with the petitioner's assertion that the population is in decline. That relatively low numbers were recorded since Neff's
(1937)high estimate of 737,000 birds in the 1930s does not in our view provide substantial information that the species may warrant listing because of the uncertainty of Neff's estimating procedures and recent comparable studies show the species to be stable or increasing since the 1970s. Colony Destruction by Agricultural Activities The petition cites a Service white paper and briefing statement (Service 2000) stating that harvesting of grain silage causes nest destruction and direct mortality, which threatens most of the remaining breeding population of the species. We agree that active colonies nesting in silage should be protected, and that loss of tricolored blackbirds and reduction of nesting success occurs and may cause localized declines. The white paper and briefing statement was developed to inform and provide recommendations to Service management for managing tricolored blackbird use of dairy silage as a nesting substrate. The paper outlined concerns of using silage buyouts as a long-term solution to tricolored blackbird conservation. However, no information provided by the petitioners or other information otherwise available to us including the white paper or information cited in the paper (i.e. DeHaven 2000) suggests that silage harvest has or will contribute to a rangewide population decline. Population numbers since the 1970s, as discussed above, appear to be somewhat stable. Tricolored blackbirds may breed more than one time in the breeding season if a prior breeding effort failed (Hamilton 1998, pp. 223, 224). Although the subsequent breeding effort may be smaller than the initial effort (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 11), the ability to re-nest probably mitigates the occasional loss of nests with silage cutting. Hamilton (2004, p. 43) also stated that the claim of declines in the tricolored blackbird population due to the harvesting of silage is not based upon a complete analysis of existing data. Destruction of Other Suitable Upland Breeding Substrates and Surrounding Habitats The petition cites Cook and Toft (2005, pp. 85, 86) as stating that Himalayan blackberry supports the highest density of tricolored blackbird nesting among all other substrates, and that therefore lack of protection of this habitat is a threat to the tricolored blackbird. We agree that tricolored blackbirds may nest in non-native substrates such as Himalayan blackberry, thistles, and prickly lettuce, as stated by the petition. However, we have no information and the petitioner provided no information to suggest that the lack of protection of non-native substrates such as Himalayan blackberry is a threat to the continued existence of the tricolored blackbird. Again, as stated above, the most recent surveys estimate the tricolored blackbird population has increased from 162,000 to 260,000 breeding birds since 2000, and the number of birds appear to be consistent with, or higher than, the numbers of birds found in the 1970s. Further, no information is available to suggest that breeding habitat should be considered limiting, or that its loss should be considered a substantial threat. For these reasons, we reject the petitioner's assertions that lack of protection for breeding habitat should be considered a threat. Range and Distribution The petition does not specifically claim that a reduction in range has occurred for the species, but it does state that few if any breeding reports outside of California have been confirmed since 1999. We reviewed currently available information on tricolored blackbird breeding from Washington, Oregon, and Nevada, and found that this information supports the contention that the species continues to breed in these areas and documents new areas where it has been found between 2003 and 2006 (Marshall *et al.* 2003, pp. 578-580; Floyd *et al.* 2006; Seattle Audubon Society Web site, 2006). Based on this recent information we disagree with the petitioner that few if any breeding reports outside of California have been confirmed since 1999, but that the most current information shows new breeding colonies in all three states. Summary of Factor A To summarize Factor A, information included in the petition and information otherwise available to us demonstrate that destruction of native habitats, direct nest loss and mortality caused by agricultural activities, and destruction of other suitable breeding habitats has occurred and may continue to impact the local abundance and viability of tricolored blackbirds. Loss of wetlands has occurred in the Central Valley of California in tricolored blackbird habitat for many decades. However, the population has increased in recent survey years and appears to be stable since the 1970s. The petition has presented no information that suggests that the habitat loss experienced is having an impact on the population levels of the tricolored blackbird. Additionally, the harvesting of silage during the tricolored blackbird breeding period can have localized negative impacts on species habitat and populations due to direct mortality and nest destruction. However, we currently have no information and the petition provided no information on how the loss of a local breeding effort affects the population in subsequent years, or to support a determination that silage harvesting is a substantial risk to the rangewide population and continued existence of the tricolored blackbird. The species is found throughout the majority of its historical range, with additional new breeding populations documented in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Therefore, we find that the petition and other information otherwise available to us does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the continued existence of the species is threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes Information Provided by the Petitioner The petition claims that a history of widespread persecution of blackbird species has likely contributed to a decline in the tricolored blackbird. The petition cites Neff (1942, pp. 46, 47) who stated that in 1928 and 1929, market hunting for blackbirds in the Central Valley of California became a thriving business and a market was created in large cities by Italian produce firms. Market hunters killed thousands of blackbirds; it was reported that one group of market hunters shipped nearly 400,000 blackbirds from the Sacramento Valley in five seasons (Neff 1942, pp. 46). Market hunting started to decrease by 1936 and 1937, with an estimated 88,000 birds being shipped (Neff 1942, pp. 47). The petition also cites Neff (1942, pp. 46, 47) as stating that numerous blackbirds were reportedly shot by ranchers, used by people as target practice, and poisoned to control damage to crops. The petitioners state that these killings were a source of high adult mortality. The petitioners also state that poisoning of thousands of blackbird species to control rice crop damage in the Central Valley of California continued until the 1960s (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 18). The petition states that due to improved harvesting methods, rice varieties that ripen faster, and fewer individual blackbirds, extermination programs have ceased; however, the historic occurrence of blackbird poisoning has likely contributed to the species' population decline (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 18). Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Information Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review We agree that tricolored blackbirds were deliberately killed historically for market use, sport hunting, or protection of crops by use of poisons or guns; however, we are not aware of a current market, sport hunting or protection of crops by the use of poison on the tricolored blackbird. No information was provided by the petitioners or was available to us that documents any historic or current information describing how poisoning or market hunting may have contributed to the overall decline of the species' population size or reduction in its range. Therefore, we find that the petition does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the tricolored blackbird is threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. C. Disease or Predation Information Provided by the Petitioner The petition cites several papers (Hamilton *et al.* 1995, p. 21; Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 10; Hamilton 2000, p. 14) that describe predation as major cause of large-scale nesting failures in many tricolored blackbird colonies, especially those colonies that nest in native emergent marsh. The petition cites Hamilton *et al.* (1995, pp. 21, 35) and Hamilton (2000, pp. 13, 14) to claim that black-crowned night-heron and raccoon predation on tricolored blackbird colonies in marshes can destroy all or the majority of nests within such colonies, which results in nest failure of the entire colony. The petition states that tricolored blackbirds nesting at Kern NWR in Kern County and the Maxwell I and II colonies in Colusa County failed due to black-crowned night-heron predation. The petitioners also state that black-crowned night-heron predation on the tricolored blackbird is of special concern at National Wildlife Refuges, because the refuges are becoming more important nesting sites for black-crowned night-herons and tricolored blackbirds as private lands are converted to other uses, and as grain silage fields may be harvested during the tricolored blackbird nesting season. The petition cites Cook and Toft (2005, pp. 80-82) to claim that tricolored blackbird reproductive success was much lower in native emergent marsh than in any other nesting substrate, except for silage that was lost to harvesting operations. The petition also cites a long list of historic, native predators that may have preyed upon tricolored blackbirds, and claims there have been recent reports of predation on tricolored blackbird colonies by feral cats ( *Felis catus* ) (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 17). The petition also states that tricolored blackbirds are not aggressive towards predators and will sit silently instead of attacking, unlike the behavior of red-winged blackbirds (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, p. 17, Beedy and Hamilton 1999, p. 12). The petition does not discuss or provide any information on how disease threatens the tricolored blackbird. Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Information Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review The petition infers from Hamilton *et al.*
(1999)that reproductive success of tricolored blackbirds in cattail marshes is low because of the high rate of predation that this nesting substrate endures due to high concentration of predators such as raccoons and black-crowned night-herons. Hamilton *et al.* (1999, p. 12) stated that expansion of large cattail nesting areas for tricolored blackbirds should be avoided, due to high predation of colonies in this type of nesting substrate. However, Hamilton (2000 p. 20) withdrew the previous statement made in 1999 due to observations made in 2000 of low or absent black-crowned night-heron predation on other tricolored blackbird colonies nesting in cattails. In 2000, Hamilton (2000, p. 28) observed large tricolored blackbird colonies in cattails which were not preyed upon by black-crowned night-herons. The large colonies include the two colonies on Delevan NWR that contained approximately 37,000 breeding adults and produced approximately 34,000 successful fledglings. In 2004 at Delevan NWR in Colusa County, a large colony (approximately 135,000 breeding adults) successfully nested in a cattail marsh, producing approximately 97,000 fledglings (Hamilton 2004, p. 35). While some predation probably occurs at all tricolored blackbird colonies, there is insufficient information to suggest or conclude that predation on nests in cattail marshes is a threat at the population level. The petitioners cited an example that tricolored blackbirds nesting at Kern NWR in Kern County and at Maxwell I and II in Colusa County failed due to black-crowned night-heron predation. We presume that the petitioners used Hamilton (2000, pp. 28, 29) for the Maxwell example, since no reference was given. The data provided by Hamilton (2000, p. 28) indicate the Maxwell I nesting site produced approximately 1,199 successful fledglings from about 5,000 breeding adults, while the Maxwell II nesting site only produced 38 successful fledglings from about 2,000 breeding adult tricolored blackbirds. No information was provided or available to determine why the fledgling rate at Maxwell II was low. We also could not determine what documentation the petitioners used to support their claim that a colony at Kern NWR failed due to predation. According to DeHaven (2000, pp. 17, 18), predation is reported by researchers about as frequently in the 1990s as it was in the 1970s, and it is not known if the losses to tricolored blackbird colonies from predation are within a historical and normal range that would be expected of a colonial nesting species. Payne (1969, p. 26) states that the loss to any one breeding effort of a tricolored blackbird colony may be reduced due to the species' dense colony structure; a colony is likely to occur within the territory of only one predaceous raptor. Although tricolored blackbirds have demonstrated that they are not aggressive defenders against predators, there is no information available to us or submitted by the petitioner that shows that lack of aggression towards predators may threaten the continued existence of the tricolored blackbird. The petitioner cited Beedy and Hamilton (1997, p. 17) as stating that predation on tricolored blackbird nests by feral cats is a recent phenomenon. We found that Beedy and Hamilton (1997, p. 17) cited Payne (1969, p. 25) who reported predation of tricolored blackbirds by feral cats. Payne (1969, p. 25) states that dozens of tricolored blackbird adults were found dead around a marsh in Marysville, California, and appeared to have been killed by numerous feral cats. While the Service agrees that predation on the species' nests by feral cats is a more recent occurrence than other predation reported in the early 1900s, there is no current evidence available to us or supplied by the petitioner to suggest that feral cat predation is significant range wide, or a threat to the continued existence of the tricolored blackbird. Summary of Factor C To summarize factor C, information provided in the petition and other available information suggests that predation on tricolored blackbird colonies does occur. Predation on tricolored blackbird colonies nesting in cattail marshes by black-crowned night-herons has been documented. While the Service agrees that predation occurrences may be the potential cause of some nesting failures, especially in cattail marshes, evidence also demonstrates that tricolored blackbirds can breed successfully in cattail marshes. There is no evidence that predation has increased above natural levels and is often localized in nature. We are not aware of any information indicating that predation has caused a reduction in the range or population size of the species, or that a reduction in the population of this species is likely to occur in the future due to predation. Therefore, we find that the petition does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information to document disease or predation may be a factor that threatens the tricolored blackbird. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Information Provided by the Petitioner The petition claims that the tricolored blackbird is not protected by existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition stated that the tricolored blackbird is considered a non-game bird of management concern by the Service. The petition also stated that the tricolored blackbird is considered a species of special concern by the CDFG. Additionally, the petition states that the tricolored blackbird is not listed under the Act or the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code section 2070 *et seq* ). The petition claims that current designations do not provide specific legal protection to the species aside from the requirement that a project may trigger California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)review where the impacts of the proposed action on the species must be analyzed. Actions that do not trigger CEQA would not require review. The petition also claims CEQA's mandates for environmental protection have not been implemented to protect the tricolored blackbird. The petition states that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)should afford the species protection; however, the petition further states that the statute is rarely if ever enforced against private landowner violators, and that enforcement agencies have turned a “blind eye” to annual violations of the MBTA by private landowners. The petition states that the statute strictly prohibits all “taking” (to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect,” or attempt to do so) of migratory birds unless authorized by a permit issued under Department of the Interior regulations (16 U.S.C. 703) and under 50 CFR 10.12. The petition claims that private property owners who destroy tricolored blackbird nests are in clear violation of the MBTA and its implementing regulations. Additionally, the petition claims that private landowners with dairies or other commercial agricultural operations on their property are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and the MBTA. The petition states that the code defines “unfair competition” to include “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” A business practice constitutes unfair competition if it is forbidden by any law, whether civil or criminal, whether Federal, State, or municipal, or whether statutory, regulatory, or court-made. The petition claims that private business owners who are destroying tricolored blackbird nests are vulnerable to enforcement actions under both the MBTA and the California Business and Professions code. Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Information Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review The tricolored blackbird is considered a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002). In general, species are classified as such because of
(1)Documented or apparent population declines,
(2)Small or restricted population, or
(3)Dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. This designation is a result of mandates required through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which in part requires the Service to identify non-game migratory bird species that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Act. While all of the bird species included in the list are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for federal listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. In May 1990, the CDFG added the tricolored blackbird to its species of concern list. In general CDFG classifies species as such because they
(1)Are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or
(2)historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This classification offers no legal protection in itself, but encourages consideration of the species in impact analyses, mitigation planning, and other environmental documentation (Beedy *et al.* 1991, p. 5). Local governments are typically the lead agency for conducting CEQA review of projects to convert native vegetation; thus, CDFG considers an environmental document prepared by the lead agency. CDFG considers potential impacts of the proposed project and provides information to the lead agency about possible impacts to wildlife species and habitat. CDFG can provide advisory recommendations for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts of the project. Recommended measures to reduce or avoid impacts do not become mandatory, unless adopted by the lead agency. Changes in agricultural uses, including those that may result in impacts to tricolored blackbirds, do not typically trigger CEQA requirements or allow for CDFG review (Gustafson and Steele 2004, p. 31). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture, or kill; possess; offer to or sell, barter, purchase, or deliver; or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried, or received, any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not (16 U.S.C. 703). According to the MBTA, a person, association, partnership, or corporation that violates the MBTA or its regulations is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $15,000, jail up to 6 months, or both. Anyone who knowingly takes a migratory bird and intends to, offers to, or actually sells or barters the bird is guilty of a felony, with fines up to $2,000, jail up to 2 years, or both (16 U.S.C. 707). Historically for the tricolored blackbird, the majority of breeding occurred in marshes and blackberry thickets. More recently, the species may nest in the grain silage fields associated with diaries. These grain silage fields are often harvested (when moisture content of the forage is optimal) while nesting species are still present (DeHaven 2000, p. 1). The Service agrees with the petitioner that harvesting of silage while the species is still nesting would be a violation of the MBTA if eggs and young are destroyed. We pursue investigation of such MBTA violations as we are made aware of their occurrence. As stated in the petition, the MBTA is the current Federal regulatory mechanism in place to protect the tricolored blackbird throughout its range in the United States. The petition claims that the Service turns a “blind eye” to violations of the MBTA. We are unaware of, and were not provided by the petitioners, with information that documents lack of enforcement of specific violations under the MBTA. Therefore, we believe that the MBTA provides protections for the species. In an effort to conserve and protect the tricolored blackbird, the Service and CDFG have been cooperating with public and private stakeholders to address and prevent violations of the MBTA and CEQA. The petition acknowledges these efforts and cites a 2000 example of Tevelde Farm in which the agencies arranged to compensate the farm to delay harvesting of silage to allow approximately 20,000 tricolored blackbirds to fledge. The Service and CDFG have been funding private landowners for purchase of silage crops or delay of harvesting activities since 1993 to avoid taking of nesting tricolored blackbirds in silage and to enhance reproductive success. The Service recognizes that these silage purchases or reimbursements for delay of harvest are not long-term solutions, and will be used as a short-term approach until a long-term management strategy can be devised to increase protection of the tricolored blackbird. Summary of Factor D To summarize Factor D, existing Federal and State regulations currently provide protection for the tricolored blackbird through the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CEQA review process. The petitioners only provide speculation on the lack of regulatory enforcement of the MBTA and CEQA and do not mention specific instances where these Acts were not enforced. Further, there is no evidence that lack of regulatory mechanisms is causing a population decline. Due to this lack of information, we are unable to determine that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms has led to reduction in the population size across all or within the range of the species, or that a reduction in the population of this species is likely to occur in the future. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information that lack of regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to the tricolored blackbird. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence Information Provided by the Petitioner Chemical Contaminants The petition claims that chemical contaminants are a threat to birds, including the tricolored blackbird, and those contaminants can cause mortality and nesting failures. While the petition acknowledges that the “link between environmental contaminants and nesting failure of tricolor[ed]s is largely unstudied,” the petition claims that some mortality of tricolored blackbirds has been documented due to chemical toxicity and this source of mortality could become more substantial if tricolored blackbird populations continue to decline. Citing Beedy and Hayworth (1992, pp. 33-35), the petition describes a complete nesting failure of approximately 50,000 tricolored blackbirds, at Kesterson Reservoir in Merced County in 1986. The petition also cites Beedy and Hayworth (1992, pp. 33-35), who collected dead nestlings, of which some had club feet, along with other species of birds that had similar deformities, and sampled tricolored blackbird nestlings and found them to have higher concentration of selenium in their livers than that of red-winged blackbirds sampled at a nearby location. The petition cites Beedy and Hamilton (1997, pp. 18, 19) who stated that the suspected cause of tricolored blackbird nestling deaths in 1986 was from selenium contamination. The petition further cites Beedy and Hamilton (1999, p. 18): Reporting biologist William J. Hamilton III personally observed a tricolored blackbird colony that failed to hatch due to mosquito abatement spraying in Kern County. The petition also cites the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(CDPR)data (CDPR Web site data 2002) detailing types and quantities of chemicals used in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Merced, Fresno, and Tulare Counties. The petition cites EXOTOXNET
(2004)to describe which chemicals are toxic to birds in general. The petition additionally states that although tricolored blackbirds were not studied directly, many of the chemicals listed by the CDPR data are highly toxic to birds and are used within the known breeding range of the species. Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Information Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review Beedy and Hayworth (1992, p. 42) describe that in April 1986, approximately 47,000 tricolored blackbirds tried to nest at Kesterson Reservoir. Surveys were conducted from April 18 to 23, 1986, of 162 tricolored blackbird nests. The study found that 84.6 percent of those nests were either empty or contained addled eggs or dead chicks, and 266 additional chicks were found dead on levee roads. Only 100 birds were fledged from the Kesterson Reservoir colony, which suggests a near nesting failure in the 1986 breeding season. Some of the dead nestlings from 1986, along with dead nestlings from further studies in 1987, were examined for deformities and their livers were screened for toxins, and some of the nestlings from both years were determined to have club feet and high levels of selenium in their livers. Beedy and Hayworth (1992, pp. 41, 42) state that more research was needed to determine if selenium contamination was the reason of nestling mortality, and if the nesting failures observed were an isolated incident or a widespread general decline of the tricolored blackbird, since the cause and magnitude of nestling mortality vary tremendously between colonies. Additionally, in 1986, the U.S. Department of the Interior decided to close the San Luis Drain, so selenium and salt no longer concentrate at Kesterson, and tricolored blackbirds no longer nest there. Aside from the nesting failure due to the potential selenium contamination in 1986, we were provided no information in the petition nor have we received any other information of other potential selenium-related nesting failures in tricolored blackbirds or any information supporting the idea that selenium contamination is currently a threat to the tricolored blackbird. There also was no information provided by the petition or otherwise available that describes what effect the nesting failure at Kesterson had on the tricolored blackbird population in 1986 or subsequent nesting seasons. The petition did not provide, and we are not aware of, any information or data to support the observation William J. Hamilton III made in Kern County of a complete nesting failure due to the spraying of mosquito abatement. We are not aware of any information or data that documents this nesting failure or whether the nesting failure was due to chemical contamination or other factors. While providing information on pesticide use in five counties in California from the CDPR, the petition did not provide information beyond speculation regarding the effects of these chemicals on the tricolored blackbird. Hamilton *et al.* (1995, p. 38) stated that limited evidence shows that chemical use in agricultural areas causes some direct mortality, but the toxins do not seem to be creating a serious problem for tricolored blackbirds. Hamilton *et al.* (1995, p. 38) go on to state that there is no evidence to show that mortality caused by agricultural chemical contamination has depressed tricolored blackbird numbers below a carrying capacity in any year. Hamilton (2000, p. 20) stated that there was no documented evidence, since the work of Beedy and Hayworth (1992), that toxic contaminants have adversely affected the tricolored blackbird, and those instances provided by the petitioners as documentation of nest failure due to chemical toxicity were not substantiated. Summary of Factor E To summarize factor E, we agree that high selenium concentrations have been documented in some of the dead nestlings at Kesterson Reservoir. However, whether the selenium toxicosis was the cause of death of these tricolored blackbird nestlings or cause for the complete nesting failure observed in 1986, or from other factors, is still unknown. No information was provided suggesting that there are ongoing dieoffs such as occurred in 1986. In addition, neither the petition nor other available information provides anything more than speculation on the types and magnitudes of effects these chemicals may have on the tricolored blackbird. Due to this lack of information, we are unable to determine that use of toxic chemicals within the range of the species has led to reduction in the population size of the species, or that a reduction in the population of this species is likely to occur in the future. Therefore, we find the petition does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information that other natural or manmade factors may be a factor threatening the continued existence of the tricolored blackbird. Finding We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually, and because the threats to the tricolored blackbird are not mutually exclusive, we also evaluated the collective effect of these threats. The petition focused on all five listing factors. We have reviewed the petition and supporting literature, as well as other information in our files on the tricolored blackbird. After our review we find that the petition did not present substantial information that indicates rangewide declines, a substantial reduction in population numbers, or substantiated threats to existing populations that rise to the level that would indicate the listing of the tricolored blackbird is warranted or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Threats to the tricolored blackbird, as described by the petition, included loss of native habitats, agricultural activities causing nest destruction and direct mortality of birds, destruction of other suitable breeding substrates and surrounding habitats, overutilization of the species, predation, lack of existing regulatory mechanisms, and chemical contamination. While these threats may affect local populations of tricolored blackbirds, the information provided in the petition was speculative in nature. The petition did not provide specific information to document the degree that the species has been affected by these threats, or that these threats have led to a significant decline in the range or distribution of the species or are likely to do so in the future. Surveys conducted for the tricolored blackbird that we are aware of and that were discussed in the petitioner's information did not use a consistent level of effort in surveying and the petitioners did not base their conclusion on the most current population information available. Therefore, population and distribution trends have varied throughout survey years due to survey methods in addition to the likely natural population fluctuations. At present the most recent studies indicate that, since 2000, the rangewide population of tricolored blackbirds has increased regardless of any potential habitat loss, predation, or chemical contamination. We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided with the petition and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent literature and information available to us at the time of the petition review. Based on this review and evaluation, we find that the petition and other available information does not present substantial information demonstrating that listing the tricolored blackbird as threatened or endangered may be warranted at this time. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the tricolored blackbird. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary authors of this notice are staff of Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 28, 2006. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-20547 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 061124308-6308-01; I.D. 101906C] RIN 0648-AV02 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Atlantic; Commercial King Mackerel Fishery of the Atlantic; Consideration of a Control Date AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) is considering additional management measures to further limit the number of participants or levels of participation in the commercial fishery for Atlantic group king mackerel in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic region. If such management measures are implemented, the SAFMC is considering June 15, 2004, as a possible control date where anyone who entered the fishery after that date would not be assured of future access. DATES: Comments must be received by January 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: 0648-AV02.ANPR@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “0648-AV02”. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, 727-824-5305. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The commercial fishery for Atlantic group king mackerel in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EEZ is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Region (FMP). The SAFMC has approval from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) to manage Atlantic group king mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic region. The FMP was prepared jointly by the SAFMC and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), with the approval of the MAFMC, and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The SAFMC anticipates that future action may be necessary to further control effort or participation in the Atlantic group king mackerel fishery through additional management actions. The SAFMC has concerns about future shifts in fishing effort that would increase catches of Atlantic group king mackerel in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EEZ, and wants to prevent the possibility of excess harvesting capacity developing for the Atlantic group king mackerel fishery. Should the SAFMC and GMFMC take future action to restrict participation in the fishery for Atlantic group king mackerel, they may use June 15, 2004, as a possible control date. This control date replaces an existing control date of October 16, 1995 (60 FR 53567, October 16, 1995). Implementation of any program to restrict access in the Atlantic group king mackerel fishery would require: preparation of an amendment to the FMP and publication of a notice of availability of the amendment with a comment period, publication of a proposed rule with a public comment period, approval of the amendment, and issuance of a final implementing rule. Consideration of a control date does not commit the SAFMC, the GMFMC, or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the commercial Atlantic group king mackerel fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in a fishery regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery before or after the control date under consideration. Use of the June 15, 2004 control date in future management actions would mean anyone entering the fishery after that date would not be assured of future access. Nevertheless, even fishermen who are permitted prior to the June 15, 2004 control date are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery. The SAFMC may choose to give variably weighted consideration to fishermen active in the fishery before and after the control date. Other qualifying criteria, such as documentation of landings and sales, may be applied for entry into the fishery. The SAFMC subsequently may choose a different control date or they may choose a management regime without using a control date. The SAFMC also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 29, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-20588 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 061124307-6307-01; I.D. 112106A] RIN 0648-AT65 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2007 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). This action also proposes to modify existing management measures to improve the monitoring and management of the squid fisheries. Specifically, trimester quota allocations for the *Loligo* squid fishery and an increased *Loligo* squid incidental catch limit for *Illex* squid moratorium vessels are proposed for 2007. This action also requests public comment concerning the possibility of an inseason adjustment to increase the mackerel harvest, if landings approach proposed harvest limits. Lastly, this action would clarify, update, and correct existing regulatory language that is misleading or incorrect. These proposed specifications and management measures promote the utilization and conservation of the MSB resource. DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment
(EA)and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.nmfs.gov* . Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the following methods: • E-mail to the following address: 2007MSBSpex@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on 2007 MSB Specifications”; • Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* ; • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2007 MSB Specifications”; or • Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul,
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 281-9272, fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries
(FMP)appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. Regulations governing foreign fishing appear at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. These regulations, at §§ 648.21 and 600.516(c), require that NMFS, based on the maximum optimum yield (Max OY) of each fishery as established by the regulations, annually publish a proposed rule specifying the amounts of the initial optimum yield (IOY), allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP), as well as, where applicable, the amounts for total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) and joint venture processing
(JVP)for the affected species managed under the FMP. In addition, these regulations allow *Loligo* squid specifications to be specified for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. The regulations found in § 648.21 also specify that IOY for squid is equal to the combination of research quota
(RQ)and DAH, with no TALFF specified for squid. For butterfish, the regulations specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF will be specified only if TALFF is specified for Atlantic mackerel. For 2007, the Council recommended the consideration of RQ of up to 3 percent of the IOY for *Loligo* and *Illex* squid. The RQ would fund research and data collection for those species. A Request for Research Proposals was published to solicit proposals for 2007 based on research priorities previously identified by the Council (70 FR 76253, December 23, 2005). The deadline for submission was February 21, 2006. On May 2, 2006, NMFS convened a Review Panel to review the comments submitted by technical reviewers. Based on discussions between NMFS staff, technical review comments, and Review Panel comments, two project proposals requesting *Loligo* squid set-aside landings were recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award, for a total RQ of up to 510 mt. The commercial *Loligo* squid quota in this proposed rule has been adjusted to allow for RQ. If the award is not made by the NOAA Grants Office for any reason, NMFS will give notice of an adjustment to the annual quota to return the unawarded set-aside amount to the fishery. At its June 20-22, 2006, meeting in Wilmington, DE, the Council recommended 2007 MSB specifications. The recommended specifications for *Loligo* squid, *Illex* squid, and butterfish are the same as those implemented in 2006. For mackerel, the Council recommended a reduced ABC, based on re-estimated biological reference points from the most recent stock assessment and increasing Canadian catch. The IOY, DAH, DAP, JVP, and TALFF are the same as those implemented in 2006. To improve monitoring and management of the squid fisheries, the Council also recommended modifying existing management measures. In brief, it recommended that the 2007 commercial *Loligo* squid quota be divided into trimesters, rather than into quarters as it has been since 2001, and that the *Loligo* squid incidental catch limit for *Illex* squid moratorium vessels fishing seaward of the *Loligo* squid exemption line (approximately the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour) during an August closure of the *Loligo* squid fishery would increase from 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). The Council delayed recommending trimester quota allocations until its August 2006 meeting, when additional information on the seasonality of historic *Loligo* squid landings was presented by the Council staff. The Council also discussed the possibility of an inseason adjustment to the mackerel harvest, if landings approach the proposed IOY. Finally, the Council recommended that up to 3 percent of the ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP for *Loligo* and *Illex* squid be set aside for scientific research in 2007. At its August 1-3, 2006, meeting in Philadelphia, PA, the Council recommended trimester quota allocations for the *Loligo* squid fishery and clarified the *Loligo* squid incidental catch limit for *Illex* squid vessels. The Council recommended the following *Loligo* squid trimester allocations: Trimester I (January-April), with 43 percent of the quota; Trimester II (May-August), with 17 percent of the quota; and Trimester III (September-December), with 40 percent of the quota. Because the increased *Loligo* squid limit for *Illex* squid vessels, during an August closure of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery, is intended to be an incidental catch limit, the Council also recommended that the increased limit would only be available to *Illex* squid vessels that had a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* squid on board. Issue of Concern; Incidental Loligo Squid Possession Limit for the Illex Squid Vessels The issue of incidental catch of *Loligo* squid in the *Illex* squid fishery was identified several years ago when large amounts of *Loligo* squid discards were reported in vessel trip reports by *Illex* squid vessels during closures of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery in the summer and fall of 2000. Analyses developed for Amendment 9 to the FMP indicated that the *Illex* squid fishery occurs primarily during June-November in offshore waters and that both squid species can co-occur during September-November on the *Illex* squid fishery grounds when the *Loligo* squid begin to move offshore. Because of the seasonal co-occurrence of the two squid species, members of the directed *Illex* squid fishery testified at Council meetings that the 2,500-lb (1.13-mt) incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit during closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery creates compliance problems for the *Illex* squid fishery because vessels catch more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of *Loligo* squid when the species mix. In an effort to reduce regulatory discarding and allow more accurate quantification of the removals of *Loligo* squid taken in the directed *Illex* squid fishery, the Council recommends increasing the incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit for vessels engaged in the directed *Illex* squid fishery during *Loligo* squid fishery closures. Specifically, for 2007 only, during August closures of the *Loligo* squid fishery, *Illex* squid moratorium vessels fishing seaward of the small mesh exemption line (approximately the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour) would be permitted to possess and land up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Loligo* squid, provided they possess a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* squid on board. This measure is recommend for 1 year only, and the Council intends to re-assess it next year. The purpose of this proposed measure is to allow *Loligo* squid that would otherwise become regulatory discards to be landed. The Council recommended an increase in the incidental *Loligo* squid trip limit from 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) because analyses prepared for Amendment 9 suggest a 10,000-lb (4.54-mt) limit would account for 92 percent of observed *Illex* squid trips during which *Loligo* squid were discarded. While *Loligo* and *Illex* squid primarily co-occur during September-November, the Council specified the increased incidental *Loligo* squid trip limit for August because, under the trimester allocations, the directed *Loligo* squid fishery is more likely to be closed in August than during September-November. Additionally, the Council recommends allowing this increased limit only for vessels fishing seaward of the 50-fm (91-m) line that defines the current small mesh exemption area for the *Illex* squid fishery. Despite the Council's efforts to address regulatory discards of *Loligo* squid in the *Illex* squid fishery, NMFS is concerned about the enforceability of the measure. The small mesh exemption line, which approximates the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour, was implemented for the *Illex* squid fishery because *Illex* squid are not generally available to the fishery shoreward of this line. The *Illex* squid fishery is exempt from the 1-7/8 inch (48-mm) minimum mesh requirement for the *Loligo* squid fishery in the exemption area. However, *Loligo* squid are widely distributed shoreward of this line. The Council recommended no mechanisms to assure that NMFS could determine if vessels issued *Illex* squid permits fish for *Loligo* squid shoreward of the small mesh exemption line (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems or trip declarations). In addition, analyses presented in the development of Amendment 9 suggest that increasing the incidental trip limit to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) could encourage the targeting of *Loligo* squid, because *Loligo* squid are more valuable than *Illex* squid. In a letter dated June 13, 2006, NMFS urged the Council to carefully consider implementation aspects associated with this measure, such as monitoring and enforcement. NMFS is including the measure in this proposed rule, but continues to have serious concerns about the proposal. NMFS will review public comment and make a final determination about the proposed measure in the final specifications. 2007 Proposed Specifications and Management Measures Table 1. Proposed Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish for 2007 Fishing Year. Specifications *Loligo* *Illex* Mackerel Butterfish Max OY 26,000 24,000 N/A 12,175 ABC 17,000 24,000 186,000 4,545 IOY 16,490 1 24,000 115,000 2 1,681 DAH 16,490 24,000 115,000 3 1,681 DAP 16,490 24,000 100,000 1,681 JVP 0 0 0 0 TALFF 0 0 0 0 1 Excludes 510 mt for Research Quota
(RQ)2 IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 186,000 mt. 3 Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation. Atlantic Mackerel The status of the Atlantic mackerel stock was most recently assessed at the 42nd Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC)in late 2005. SARC 42 reconsidered the biological reference points
(BRP)for Atlantic mackerel specified in Amendment 8 to the FMP and provided new estimates for these reference points, including the fishing mortality rate
(F)that produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or F msy , the spawning stock biomass that produces MSY (SSB msy ), and the target F to be used in establishing the annual quota. These reference points were re-estimated to be F msy = 0.16 (previously 0.45), SSB msy = 644,000 mt (previously 890,000 mt), and F target = 0.12 (previously 0.25). F for Atlantic mackerel in 2004 was estimated to be 0.05, and spawning stock biomass was estimated at 2.3 million mt. Overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is defined by the FMP to occur when the catch associated with F MSY is exceeded. SARC 42 concluded that the Atlantic mackerel stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. When SSB is greater than SSB msy , the target F is 0.12. To avoid low levels of recruitment, the FMP contains a control rule whereby the threshold F decreases linearly from F msy at SSB msy to zero at 161,000 mt SSB (1/4 of SSB msy ), and the target F decreases linearly from F target at SSB msy to zero at 1/2 SSB msy . Annual quotas are to be specified that correspond to the target F resulting from this control rule. Based on the most recent stock assessment, the Atlantic mackerel SSB is currently above 644,000 mt, so the target F for 2007 is 0.12. According to the FMP, mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T - C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year and T is the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate that is equal to the target F. The yield associated with the target F=0.12 is 238,000 mt. Canadian catch of mackerel has been increasing in recent years; therefore, the estimate of Canadian catch for 2007 has been increased from the 2006 estimate of 34,000 mt to 52,000 mt. Thus, 238,000 mt minus 52,000 mt results in a proposed 2007 mackerel ABC of 186,000 mt. The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, an IOY of 115,000 mt. The Council believes that this level of harvest would provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and would allow for an increase in domestic landings. In recent years, domestic mackerel landings have been increasing due to major investments in the domestic mackerel processing sector. Mackerel landings in 2003 totaled 34,298 mt, while preliminary landings for 2006 total 58,857 mt. The 115,000 mt IOY is consistent with mackerel regulations at § 648.21(b)(2)(ii), which state that IOY is a modification of ABC, based on social and economic factors, and must be less than or equal to ABC. The Council expressed its concern, supported by industry testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would threaten the expansion of the domestic industry. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall be that portion of the optimum yield
(OY)of a fishery that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. TALFF catches would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry efforts to expand exports. The Council noted that this would prevent the U.S. industry from taking advantage of declines in the European production of Atlantic mackerel that have resulted in an increase in world demand for U.S. fish. The only economic benefit associated with a TALFF is the foreign fishing fees it generates. On the other hand, there are economic benefits associated with the development of the domestic mackerel fishery. Increased mackerel production generates jobs both for plant workers and other support industries. More jobs generate additional sources of income for people resident in coastal communities and generally enhance the social fabric of these communities. For these reasons, the Council concluded, and NMFS proposes, to specify IOY at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, in order to assist the U.S. mackerel industry to expand. This will yield positive social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors. Given the trends in landings, and the industry's testimony that the fishery is poised for significant growth, NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to assume that, in 2007, the commercial fishery will harvest 100,000 mt of mackerel. Thus DAH would be 115,000 mt, which is the commercial harvest plus the 15,000 mt allocated for the recreational fishery. Because IOY = DAH, this specification is consistent with the Council's recommendation that the level of IOY should not provide for a TALFF. NMFS also concurs with the Council's recommendation to maintain JVP at zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In previous years, the Council recommended a JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S. processors lacked the capability to process the total amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 2 years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because the surplus between DAH and DAP has been declining as U.S. shoreside processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council received testimony from processors and harvesters that the shoreside processing sector of this industry has continued to expand since 2002-2003. Subsequent industry testimony estimated current processing capacity at 2,500 mt per day. In addition, industry members anticipate that an at-sea processing vessel will enter the mackerel fishery in 2007. The Council also heard from the industry that the availability of mackerel to the fishery, rather than processing capacity, has curtailed catch in recent years. Based on this information, the Council concluded that processing capacity is no longer a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel. Furthermore, the Council concluded that the U.S. mackerel processing sector has the potential to process the DAH, so JVP would be specified at zero. Inseason Adjustment of the Mackerel IOY Regulations at § 648.21(e) specify that specifications may be adjusted inseason during the fishing year by the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Council, by publishing a notice in the **Federal Register** and providing a 30-day public comment period. At the June 2006 Council meeting, in response to recent growth in the domestic harvesting and processing sectors of the mackerel fishery, both the mackerel industry and the Council voiced interest in increasing the 2007 mackerel IOY if landings approach 115,000 mt during the most active part of the fishing year (January-April). However, the mackerel fishing season is short. To facilitate a timely inseason adjustment to the mackerel IOY, if necessary, this action is proposing and seeking comment on such an inseason adjustment. In 2007, NMFS's Northeast Fishery Statistic Office
(FSO)will summarize mackerel landings from dealer reports on a weekly basis and post this information on the Northeast Regional Office website ( *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/* ). NMFS staff will closely monitor these landings and industry trends to determine if an inseason adjustment is necessary. If using landings projections and all other available information, the Regional Administrator determines that 70 percent of the Atlantic mackerel IOY will be landed during the 2007 fishing year, to ensure continued fishing opportunities during the 2007 fishing year, the Regional Administrator will make available additional quota for a total IOY of 186,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel for harvest during 2007. Additionally, if an inseason adjustment of the IOY is warranted, the Regional Administrator will notify the Council and the inseason adjustment will be published in the **Federal Register** . Atlantic Squids *Loligo* squid While the annual quota and other measures for *Loligo* squid can be specified for up to 3 years, the Council chose to recommend *Loligo* specifications and management measures for 1 year only. After a review of available information, the Council recommended no change to the *Loligo* squid Max OY and ABC from 2006; NMFS concurs with this recommendation. Therefore, the proposed 2007 *Loligo* squid Max OY is 26,000 mt and the proposed ABC is 17,000 mt. The Council recommended that the *Loligo* squid RQ for 2007 be up to 3 percent (510 mt) of the ABC. Two scientific research project proposals requesting *Loligo* squid RQ were recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award. The proposed *Loligo* squid IOY, DAH, and DAP were adjusted to reflect the RQ and equal 16,490 mt. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the *Loligo* squid fishery, because of the domestic industry's capacity to harvest and process the OY for this fishery; therefore, JVP and TALFF are zero. Distribution of the *Loligo* Squid DAH Prior to 2000, the DAH for *Loligo* was specified as an annual quota. In 2000, the quota was subdivided into three trimester allocations. Since 2001, the annual DAH for *Loligo* squid has been allocated into four quarter allocations, as follows: Quarter I (January-March) with 33.23 percent of the quota, Quarter II (April-June) with 17.61 percent of the quota, Quarter III (July-September) with 17.30 percent of the quota, and Quarter IV (October-December) with 31.86 percent of the quota. In an effort to improve the monitoring and management of the *Loligo* squid fishery, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, that the 2007 DAH be allocated into trimesters. Managing the DAH by trimesters, rather than quarters, results in allocations that are the same or higher than the quarterly allocations. Higher allocations may increase the length of time the fishery is open and allow closure projections to be based on more information and, perhaps, to be more accurate. Additionally, managing by trimesters rather than quarters is administratively streamlined because only three, rather than four, closures of the directed fishery could occur during a fishing year. For these reasons, this action proposes that the 2007 *Loligo* squid DAH be allocated into trimesters. Previously, the allocation of *Loligo* squid DAH into quarters (2001-2006) and trimesters
(2000)was based on landings data for the period of 1994-1998. Trimester allocations for 2007 were based on the same data as the 2000 *Loligo* squid trimester allocation (1994-1998), but the landings data had been updated since 2000 to remove any landings of squid categorized as “unclassified.” The proposed 2007 trimester allocations would be as follows: Table 2. Proposed Trimester Allocation of *Loligo* Squid Quota in 2007 Trimester Percent Metric Tons 1 RQ
(mt)I (Jan-Apr) 43.0 7,090.7 NA II (May-Aug) 17.0 2,803.3 NA III (Sep-Dec) 40.0 6,596.0 NA Total 100 16,490 510 1 Trimester allocations after 510 mt RQ deduction. For 2007, the Council recommended that the percentage at which the directed *Loligo* squid fishery would close and the handling of quota overages and underages would be the same as in 2000. Therefore, this action proposes the regulatory language that was in effect in 2000, such that the directed *Loligo* squid fishery would close when 90 percent of the DAH is harvested in Trimesters I and II, and when 95 percent of the DAH is harvested in Trimester III, as was done in 2000. Additionally, it proposes that any underages from Trimesters I and II would be applied to Trimester III, and any overages from Trimesters I and II would be subtracted from Trimester III. This language is consistent with the Council motion, but the measure is incorrectly described in the EA for this action, which states that underages from Trimesters I and II would be applied to the next trimester. The Council is encouraged to comment on this inconsistency during the comment period. During the Council discussion about trimester allocations, some members of the *Loligo* squid industry expressed concern about quota availability during summer months, especially July. Under the 2006 quarterly quota allocation, Quarter III started on July 1. As a result, the directed fishery during the month of July was important to the *Loligo* squid industry, because a new allocation of *Loligo* squid became available on July 1. Under the proposed trimesters, the Trimester II allocation of 17 percent would be available to the directed fishery from May-August, or until the allocation is harvested. Some industry representatives believe that Trimester II's allocation will likely be harvested before July 1. If that were to occur, the directed fishery would close and there would be no directed *Loligo* squid fishery during the month of July. In an effort to ensure that some of the Trimester II quota is available to the directed fishery during the month of July, the Council recommended a measure to suspend the availability of a portion of the quota until July 1. Specifically, the Council proposed that if 45 percent of Trimester II's quota was projected to be landed prior to July 1, then the Regional Administrator would close the directed fishery until July 1, and the fishery would operate under incidental trip limits. On July 1, the remaining Trimester II quota would once again be available to the directed fishery until 90 percent of the quota is projected to be landed. If 45 percent of the Trimester II quota was not projected to be landed prior to July 1, then the directed fishery would close when 90 percent of the quota was projected to be landed. When the Council discussed this proposed measure, NMFS informed the Council that a closure of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery when Trimester II landings are at 45 percent (i.e., approximately 1,300 mt) could not be effectively administered because of the small size of the quota and the sizable landings that can be made per trip. NMFS representatives explained that it is not possible to monitor landings in near real-time and accurately project closure dates in this type of high-volume fishery. NMFS, therefore, is not proposing this measure, because the proposed quota for Trimester II is small, and the fishing activity is likely to be intense during Trimester II, and there is little likelihood that such small quotas could be effectively monitored in a time frame to prevent significant underages or overages. This proposed measure is also inconsistent with the intent of the trimester approach to quota monitoring. Landing Frequency of Incidental *Loligo* Squid Possession Limit The Council clarified the landing requirements for vessels issued an open access permit which is subject to a 2,500-lb (1.13 mt) incidental catch *Loligo* squid possession limit specified at § 648.22(c). The Council voted to clarify permanently that this permit authorizes the landing of an incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit once per calendar day. In previous years, because vessels were landing multiple possession limits per day during closures of the directed fishery, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, regulatory language clarifying that only one landing per day was allowed during closures of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery (66 FR 13024, March 2, 2001). At its June 2006 meeting, the Council discussed the fact that vessels issued incidental catch permits were making multiple landings per day when the directed *Loligo* squid fishery was open. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, to clarify that vessels subject to the incidental *Loligo* squid possession limits may only land once per calendar day, whether the directed *Loligo* squid fishery is open or closed. *Illex* squid The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the *Illex* squid specifications in 2007 at the same levels as they were for the 2006 fishing year. Specifically, this action proposes that the specification of Max OY, IOY, ABC, and DAH would be 24,000 mt. The overfishing definition for *Illex* squid states that overfishing for *Illex* squid occurs when the catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate of F MSY is exceeded. Max OY is specified as the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of F MSY , while DAH is specified as the level of harvest that corresponds to a target fishing mortality rate of 75 percent F MSY . The biomass target is specified as B MSY . The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 B MSY . The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the *Illex* squid fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery. Butterfish The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the butterfish specifications in 2007 at the same levels as they were for the 2006 fishing year. Therefore, the proposed specifications would set the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 1,681 mt to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (75 percent of FMSY) specified in the FMP based on the most recent stock assessment for the species (SARC 38) and would set ABC at 4,545 mt. Allowable butterfish landings equals ABC less estimated discards, which are roughly twice landings. Assuming that biomass in 2007 will be similar to biomass during 2000-2002 and that the discard-to-landing ratio remains constant, then landings associated with the target F would be 1,681 mt. Consistent with MSB regulations, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, zero TALFF for butterfish in 2007 because zero TALFF is proposed for mackerel. NMFS notified the Council in February 2005 that the butterfish stock is overfished. The rebuilding plan for butterfish is being developed in Amendment 10 to the FMP. Modifications to Existing Regulatory Language NMFS proposes in this action to permanently update, clarify, and correct existing regulatory language that is misleading or incorrect. As discussed previously, biological reference points for mackerel were re-estimated in the most recent stock assessment and the updated reference points were used to calculate the mackerel ABC proposed for 2007. It is appropriate to use the most recent information when developing annual specifications. To clarify this issue, this action proposes that regulatory language describing the procedure for calculating mackerel ABC (at § 648.21(b)(2)) would describe the reference points and formula, but would not include any values. This makes it clearer that the values from the most recent stock assessment are to be used to calculate mackerel ABC. In § 648.21, there are two references to the guidelines used to determine annual initial amounts of harvest. The references cite paragraph (a), but the guidelines are actually located at paragraph
(b)of that section. This action proposes to correct those citations. As discussed previously, the Council explicitly requested action to clarify that the landing frequency for vessels subject to the incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit is once per calendar day. This applies to vessels during closures of the directed *Loligo* squid fishery that participate in the directed fishery and to vessels issued *Loligo* squid incidental catch permits at all times. The regulations at § 648.22(c) specify the incidental possession limits for *Loligo* squid, *Illex* squid, and butterfish. While the Council did not explicitly recommend clarifying the landing frequency for *Illex* squid or butterfish, this action proposes to make the same clarification for those species. The regulations defining how to obtain incidental catch permits for *Loligo* squid, *Illex* squid, and butterfish are located at § 648.4(a)(5). However, regulations at § 648.21(c)(3) only reference *Loligo* squid and butterfish when describing incidental catch permits. Therefore, this action proposes to list *Illex* squid along with *Loligo* squid and butterfish at § 648.21(c)(3). Beginning in 2007, the NEFSC Director, rather than the Regional Administrator, will provide final approval for research projects requesting RQ. Therefore, this action proposes that regulations at § 648.21(g) be updated to reflect that change. Lastly, this action proposes to clarify the reporting requirements for at-sea processors. Regulations at § 648.7(f)(3) describe reporting requirements for at-sea purchases and processors. To clarify that at-sea processors in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)are bound by the same reporting requirements as shore-based processors, this action proposes removing language suggesting that these reporting requirements only apply if the product is landed in a port in the United States. Classification This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . A summary of the analysis follows: Statement of Objective and Need This action proposes 2007 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish, and modification of existing management measures to improve the monitoring and management of these fisheries. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply Based on permit data, the number of potential fishing vessels in the 2007 fisheries are as follows: 383 for *Loligo* squid/butterfish, 77 for *Illex* squid, 2,528 for mackerel, and 2,016 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, the numbers are not additive. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities Proposed Actions The mackerel IOY proposed in this action (115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to recreational catch) represents no constraint on vessels in this fishery. This level of landings has not been achieved by vessels in this fishery in recent years. Mackerel landings for 2001-2003 averaged 24,294 mt. Landings in 2004 were 54,296 mt, landings in 2005 were 43,244 mt, and preliminary landings for 2006 were 68,298 mt. Additionally, this action proposes an inseason adjustment, if landings approach the IOY early in the fishing year, to increase the IOY up to the ABC (186,000 mt). Therefore, no reductions in revenues for the mackerel fishery are expected as a result of this proposed action, in fact, an increase in revenues as a result of the proposed action is possible. Based on preliminary 2006 data, the mackerel fishery could increase its landings by 46,702 mt in 2007, if it takes the entire IOY. In 2005, the last year with complete financial data, the average value for mackerel was $261 per mt. Using this value, the mackerel fishery could see an increase in revenues of $12,189,222 as a result of the proposed 2007 IOY (115,000 mt) and an additional increase in revenues of $18,531,000 as a result of the proposed adjustment to increase the IOY up to the ABC (186,000 mt) . The *Loligo* squid IOY (17,000 mt) proposed in this action represents status quo as compared to 2006. *Loligo* squid landings for 2001-2003 averaged 14,092 mt. Landings in 2004 were 13,322 and landings in 2005 were 16,765 mt. In 2005, the last year with complete financial data, the average value for *Loligo* squid was $1,703 per mt. Implementation of this proposed action would not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on restraint on the fishery in 2007. The *Illex* squid IOY (24,000 mt) proposed in this action represents status quo as compared to 2006. *Illex* squid landings for 2001-2003 averaged 4,350 mt. Landings in 2004 were 25,059, and landings in 2005 were 11,719 mt. In 2005, the last year with complete financial data, the average value for *Illex* squid was $715 per mt. Implementation of this proposed action would not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on restraint on the fishery in 2007. The butterfish IOY (1,681 mt) proposed in this action represents no constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. During the period 2001-2004, butterfish landings averaged 1,535 mt. Compared to the most recent 2 years for which complete information is available, 2004 and 2005, when landings were 422 mt and 393 mt, respectively, the proposed action is not expected to reduce revenues in this fishery, but may increase those revenues. Based on 2005 data, the value of butterfish was $1,803 per mt. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule The Council analysis evaluated three alternatives for mackerel, and all of them would have set IOY at 115,000 mt. This IOY does not represent a constraint on vessels in this fishery, so no impacts on revenues in this fishery is expected as a result of these alternatives. If landings approach the IOY during the early part of the fishing year, the preferred alternative contains the option of increasing the IOY up to ABC (186,000 mt). Therefore, this action may result in an increase in revenue for this fishery. One of these alternatives (status quo) would have set the ABC at 335,000 mt, and the other could have set the ABC at 204,000 mt. These alternatives were not adopted by the Council because that level of ABC is not consistent with the overfishing definition in the FMP, as updated by the most recent stock assessment. Furthermore, alternatives that would set a higher harvest were not adopted because they proposed harvest that was too high in light of social and economic concerns relating to TALFF. The specification of TALFF would have limited the opportunities for the domestic fishery to expand, and therefore would have resulted in negative social and economic impacts to both U.S. harvesters and processors (for a full discussion of the TALFF issue, see the earlier section on Atlantic mackerel). For *Loligo* squid, all alternatives set Max OY at 26,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 17,000 mt. While the annual quota under all alternatives represents status quo, alternatives differ in their allocation of the annual quota. Two alternatives allocate quotas by trimester. Of these, a closure/re-opening provision, to ensure quota is available to the directed fishery in July, is specified in one alternative but not the other. The third alternative allocates quota by quarters (status quo). These differences in seasonal quota distribution may have distributive effects on seasonal participants in the fishery. Additionally, the proposed incidental *Loligo* squid possession limit for *Illex* squid moratorium vessels (up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt)) during August could, under certain conditions, result in a reduction in the amount of *Loligo* squid quota available during Trimester III. All alternatives are expected to result in the same total landings for 2007. For *Illex* squid, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This alternative would allow harvest far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated with this alternative. However, the Council considered this alternative unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of *Illex* squid. For butterfish, one alternative considered would have set IOY at 5,900 mt, while another would have set it at 9,131 mt. These amounts exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Therefore, neither alternative represents a constraint on vessels in this fishery or would reduce revenues in the fishery. However, neither of these alternatives were adopted because they would likely result in overfishing and the additional depletion of the spawning stock biomass of an overfished species. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: November 29, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.7, paragraph (f)(3) is revised to read as follows: § 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(f)* * *
(3)*At-sea purchasers and processors.* With the exception of the owner or operator of an Atlantic herring carrier vessel, the owner or operator of an at-sea purchaser or processor that purchases or processes any Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, or black sea bass at sea must submit information identical to that required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section and provide those reports to the Regional Administrator or designee by the same mechanism and on the same frequency basis. 3. Section 648.21 is amended as follows: a. Paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(iii) introductory text are revised; b. Paragraphs
(c)introductory text and (c)(3) are revised; c. Paragraph (f)(3) is removed and paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) are revised; and d. Paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(5) introductory text are revised to read as follows: § 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(b)* * *
(1)*Loligo* and/or *Illex* Squid.
(2)* * *
(i)Mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T - C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year and T is the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate that is equal to F target at B MSY or greater and decreases linearly to zero at 1/2 B MSY or below. Values for F target and B MSY are as calculated in the most recent stock assessment.
(iii)IOY is composed of RQ, DAH and TALFF. RQ will be based on requests for research quota as described in paragraph
(g)of this section. DAH, DAP, and JVP will be set after deduction for RQ, if applicable, and must be projected by reviewing data from sources specified in paragraph
(b)of this section and other relevant data, including past domestic landings, projected amounts of mackerel necessary for domestic processing and for joint ventures during the fishing year, projected recreational landings, and other data pertinent for such a projection. The JVP component of DAH is the portion of DAH that domestic processors either cannot or will not use. In addition, IOY is based on the criteria set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically section 201(e), and on the following economic factors:
(c)*Recommended measures.* Based on the review of the data described in paragraph
(b)of this section and requests for research quota as described in paragraph
(g)of this section, the Monitoring Committee will recommend to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee the measures from the following list that it determines are necessary to ensure that the specifications are not exceeded:
(3)The amount of *Loligo* , *Illex* , and butterfish that may be retained, possessed and landed by vessels issued the incidental catch permit specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(ii).
(f)* * *
(1)A commercial quota will be allocated annually for *Loligo* squid into trimester periods, based on the following percentages: Trimester Percent I. January-April 43.0 II. May-August 17.0 III. September-October 40.0
(2)Any underages of commercial period quota for Trimester I and II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year and any overages of commercial quota for Trimesters I and II will be subtracted from Trimester III of the same year.
(g)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)The NEFSC Director and the NOAA Grants Office will consider each panel member's recommendation, provide final approval of the projects and the Regional Administrator may, when appropriate, exempt selected vessel(s) from regulations specified in each of the respective FMPs through written notification to the project proponent.
(5)If a proposal is disapproved by the NEFSC Director or the NOAA Grants Office, or if the Regional Administrator determines that the allocated research quota cannot be utilized by a project, the Regional Administrator shall reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of research quota to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries by publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, provided: 4. In § 648.22, paragraphs
(a)and
(c)are revised and paragraph
(d)is added to read as follows: § 648.22 Closure of the fishery.
(a)*Closing Procedures.*
(1)NMFS shall close the directed mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the mackerel DAH is landed, if such a closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being executed. The closure shall remain in effect for the remainder of the fishing year, with incidental catches allowed as specified in paragraph
(c)of this section, until the entire DAH is attained. When the Regional Administrator projects that the DAH will be landed for mackerel, NMFS will close the mackerel fishery in the EEZ, and the incidental catches specified for mackerel in paragraph
(c)of this section will be prohibited.
(2)NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for *Loligo* when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the quota is harvested in Trimesters I and II, and when 95 percent of DAH has been harvested in Trimester III. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of the fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified in paragraph
(c)of this section.
(3)NMFS shall close the directed *Illex* or butterfish fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the *Illex* or butterfish DAH is landed. The closure of the directed fishery will be in effect for the remainder of the fishing year, with incidental catches allowed as specified in paragraph
(c)of this section.
(c)*Incidental catches.* During a closure of the directed mackerel fishery, the possession limit for mackerel is 10 percent, by weight, of the total amount of fish on board. For vessels that have been issued a *Loligo* or butterfish incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)) or during a closure of the directed fishery for *Loligo* or butterfish, the possession limit for *Loligo* and butterfish is 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) each. For vessels that have been issued an *Illex* incidental catch permit (specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)) or during a closure of the directed fishery for *Illex* , the possession limit for *Illex* is 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). Vessels may not land more than these limits and may only land once during any single calendar day, which is defined as the 24 hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
(d)*Incidental Loligo Limit for Illex Moratorium Vessels.* During August closures of the directed *Loligo* fishery, *Illex* vessels with moratorium permits fishing seaward of the small mesh exemption line (coordinates found at § 648.23 (a)(3)) may possess and land up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Loligo* squid, provided they possess a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* squid on board. [FR Doc. E6-20578 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 233 Tuesday, December 5, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 30, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Homeowner Risk Reduction Behaviors Concerning Wildfire Risks. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The threat of wildfire to residents located in areas next to forested public lands has increased significantly during the last decade. As homeowners migrate to areas that are at increasing risk from wildfire they face important decisions regarding how much risk to accept from various sources. An important component of making decisions regarding risk is to understand the behaviors that are effective at reducing the risk and the information sources that are considered reliable for risk reduction information. To gain a better insight into homeowners' perceptions of wildfire risk, behaviors that reduce wildfire, it is important to collect information directly from the homeowners that are at risk. The information will be collected using a survey instrument that is administered via the U.S. Postal Service. The type of information collected will include:
(1)Risk perceptions regarding wildfire,
(2)risk reduction behaviors associated with wildfire,
(3)desired treatment options for forest management, and
(4)socio-demographic information. *Need and Use of the Information:* The data collected from the survey will benefit Forest Service
(FS)and the communities that are surveyed. The data will be used to generate reports that are targeted toward FS personnel that are responsible for working with communities and homeowners in order to reduce the risks associated with wildfires. Without the information FS land managers and the public will continue to interact on the issues of wildfire risk without a broad-based understanding of the factors that lesson wildfire risk, factors that are important to homeowners. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 1,571. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 538. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20533 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) intention to revise and extend the currently approved information collection for the CSREES Current Research Information System (CRIS). DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by February 5, 2007, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: *jhitchcock@csrees.usda.gov* ; Fax: 202-720-0857; Mail: Information Systems and Technology Management, CSREES, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2216; Hand Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street, SW., Waterfront Centre, Room 4217, Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hitchcock, 202-720-4343. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* CSREES Current Research Information System. *OMB Number:* 0524-0042. *Expiration Date of Current Approval:* 05/31/2007. *Type of Request:* Intent to seek approval to revise and extend an information collection for three years. *Abstract:* The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) administers several competitive, peer-reviewed research, education, and extension programs, under which awards of a high-priority are made. These programs are authorized pursuant to the authorities contained in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101 *et seq.* ); the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 *et seq.* ); and other legislative authorities. CSREES also administers several formula funded research programs. The programs are authorized pursuant to the authorities contained in the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-582a-7); the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a-i); Section 1445 of Public Law 95-113, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222); and Section 1433 of Subtitle E (Sections 1429-1439), Title XIV of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3191-3201). Each formula funded program is also subject to requirements, which were revised in March 2000, and set forth in the “Administrative Manual for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program,” the “Administrative Manual for the Hatch Research Program,” the “Administrative Manual for the Evans-Allen Cooperative Agricultural Research Program,” and the “Administrative Manual for the Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Program.” Copies of the administrative manuals are available online at: *http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/formula.html* under Regulations, Guidelines, and Policies for each formula funded research program. The Current Research Information System
(CRIS)is the USDA's documentation and reporting system for ongoing agricultural, food science, human nutrition, and forestry research. CRIS forms AD-416, AD-417, AD-419, and AD-421 constitute a necessary information collection for publicly-supported research projects as set forth in requirements established in 7 CFR Parts 3400-3419 pertaining to the aforementioned authorities. This information collection is necessary in order to provide descriptive information regarding individual research activities, integrated activities, and extension activities to document expenditures and staff support for the activities, and to monitor the progress and impact of such activities. The historical mission of CRIS, broadly stated, is to document the research activities of USDA and the State agricultural research system partners, to satisfy a variety of reporting requirements, and to provide access to research information. This mission supports one of CSREES' primary functions, as stated in the agency strategic plan, of providing program leadership to identify, develop, and manage programs to support university-based and other institutional research. The boundaries and scope of the CRIS mission are being expanded each year toward a more comprehensive purpose of documenting all of the research, education, and extension activities funded or managed by CSREES. As such, the information collected for CRIS can be utilized in an essentially unlimited number of ways for a wide array of purposes. In anticipation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy research and non-research business model requirements, CSREES is working to align this collection activity with that effort. CSREES is also revising this information collection to include the reporting information on the following Extension Activities to report using the CRIS forms: Pest Management, Farm Safety, New Technologies for Ag Extension, Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification, Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program, Renewable Resources Extension Act, and Federal Administration. Generally, CRIS provides ready access to information through public web accessible data as well as individually requested, customized reports and services for agency officials, program leaders, administrators, and managers. The information provided helps users to keep abreast of the latest developments in agricultural, food science, human nutrition and forestry research and education; track resource utilization in specific target areas of work, plan for future activities; plan for resource allocation to research, education, and extension programs; avoid costly duplication of effort; aid in coordination of efforts addressing similar problems in different locations; and aid research, education, and extension workers in establishing valuable contacts within the agricultural community. Descriptive information pertaining to documented projects is available to the general public as well as the research, education, and extension community contributing to CRIS. Limited financial information is available on individual grants and cooperative agreements as well as summary financial information through the CRIS Web site. A cooperating institution, including a state agricultural experiment station, state forestry school, 1862 land grant institution, or 1890 land grant institution has access to all of the data pertaining to that institution. Many institutions take advantage of this access utilizing CRIS system facilities to manage the research programs at their institution. In addition, CSREES staff members can request specialized reports directly from the CRIS staff. These requests can include financial disclosure pertaining to a particular subject area or targeted program. The nature of this type of request characterizes one of the strengths of the CRIS information collection. The system collects obligations and expenditures on individual projects; however, information can be retrieved and aggregated based on subject areas or targeted programs, and corresponding financial information can be tabulated accordingly. The inclusion of subject-based classifications and subject specific descriptive fields supports a unique retrieval capability in this system. The information can be utilized nationally, regionally, or at more detailed levels, by program leaders, budget officials, and administrators to identify resource utilization, monitor research, education, and extension activity in specific target areas, and support decision making and resource allocation, not just on individual projects, but also for specific program areas. This combination of system capabilities facilitates program evaluation, accountability, and decision making processes. *Estimate of Burden:* CSREES is increasing the number of respondents from the previous approved collection by 500 for each component to account for the use of this system by several education and extension programs. No changes have been made to the burden per response from the previous approval. CSREES estimates the number of respondents for the AD-416 form will be 3,758 with an estimated response time of 3.9 hours per form, representing a total annual burden of 14,656 hours for this form. It is estimated for the AD-417 there will be 3,758 respondents with an estimated response time of .7 hours per form, representing a total annual burden of 2,631 hours. CSREES estimates that the number of respondents for the AD-419 form will be 12,267 with an estimated response time of 1.4 hours per form, representing a total annual burden of 17,174 hours. The AD-421 form is estimated to have 12,658 respondents and an estimated response time of 2.7 hours per form, representing a total annual burden for this form to be 34,177 hours. Thus, for this CRIS information collection CSREES estimates a total of 68,638 annual burden hours. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)the expanded use of CRIS forms for education and extension programs, particularly programs that are competitive, project-based, and funded under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341). Dated: November 24, 2006. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E6-20555 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS 2006-0040] Product Labeling: Definition of the Term “Natural” AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of petition and public meeting; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)is announcing receipt of a petition from Hormel Foods to establish a definition for the voluntary claim “natural” and to delineate the conditions under which the claim can be used on the labels of meat and poultry products. The use of the claim “natural” is an issue of significant interest to the Agency, to industry, and to the public. Therefore, the Agency is inviting comments on the issue generally and on the petition and, to facilitate the comment process, is announcing that it will hold a public meeting to discuss the petition. After the comment period closes, FSIS will initiate rulemaking on the claim “natural.” The Agency has decided to initiate rulemaking because it is the most appropriate, open, and transparent method to deal with issues surrounding the definition and use of the claim “natural.” DATES: The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Comments on this notice must be received by January 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the rear of the Cafeteria, South Agriculture Building, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. FSIS invites interested persons to send comments on this notice. FSIS will finalize an agenda on or before the meeting date and will post it on the FSIS Internet Web page *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News?Meetings_&_Events/* . The petition discussed in this notice is available for viewing by the public in the FSIS Docket Room (see address below) and on the FSIS Web site at: *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News?Meetings_&_Events/* . The official transcript of the meeting will be available for viewing by the public in the FSIS docket room and on the FSIS Web site *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News?Meetings_&_Events/* when it becomes available. Comments on this notice may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to FSIS Docket Room, Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250. • Electronic mail: *fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* • Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulation.gov* and in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number 2006-0040 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number 2006-0040. All comments sent in response to this document, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments will also be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/regulations_directives_&_notices/index.asp.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Dr. Robert C. Post, Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development, USDA, FSIS, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250,
(202)205-0279, FAX:
(202)205-3625, e-mail: *Robert.Post@fsis.usda.gov.* Pre-registration for this meeting is recommended. To pre-register, please contact Diane Jones by telephone at
(202)720-9692 or be e-mail at *Diane.Jones@fsis.usda.gov.* Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or special accommodations should contact Ms. Jones as soon as possible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background FSIS is the public health regulatory agency in the USDA responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and truthfully labeled and packaged. In particular, FSIS develops and implements national policies to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg product labeling is truthful and non-misleading. Labeling Guidance on the Voluntary Claim “Natural” To guide manufacturers in the development of labeling that FSIS was likely to determine to be truthful and not misleading with regard to the voluntary claim “natural,” FSIS published policy guidance in the form of Standards and Labeling Policy Memorandum
(Memo)055, dated November 22, 1982. The policy guide states that the term “natural” may be used on labeling for meat products and poultry products provided that the applicant for such labeling demonstrates that:
(1)The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative (as defined in 21 CFR 101.22), or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient; and
(2)the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. Minimal processing may include:
(a)Those traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, *e.g.* , smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting, or
(b)those physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, *e.g.* , grinding meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices. Relatively severe processes, *e.g.* , solvent extraction, acid hydrolysis, and chemical bleaching, would clearly be considered more than minimal processing. Thus, the Policy Memo explained, the use of a flavor or flavoring, for example, that has undergone more than minimal processing would, in general, mean that a product in which the ingredient is used could not be called “natural.” The Policy Memo acknowledged, however, that there are exceptions to this general view, and that the presence of an ingredient that has been more than minimally processed would not necessarily preclude a product from being promoted as “natural.” The Policy Memo stated that exceptions of this type would be granted on a case-by-case basis if it could be demonstrated that the use of such an ingredient would not significantly change the character of the product to the point that it could no longer be considered a “natural” product. In such cases, the “natural” claim would have to be qualified to clearly and conspicuously identify the ingredient, *e.g.* , “all natural ingredients except dextrose, modified food starch, etc.” Policy Memo 055 further stated that all products claiming to be “natural” or a “natural” food should be accompanied by a brief statement that explains what is meant by the term “natural,” *i.e.* , that the product is a “natural” food because it contains no artificial ingredients and is only minimally processed. This statement should appear directly beneath or beside all “natural” claims or, if elsewhere on the principal display panel of the label, an asterisk should be used to tie the explanation to the claim. According to the 1982 policy, the decision of the Agency to approve or deny the use of a “natural” claim may be affected by the specific context in which the claim is made. For example, claims indicating that a product is “natural” food, *e.g.* , “natural” chili or “chili—a “natural” product” would be unacceptable for a product containing beet powder which artificially colors the finished product. However, “all natural ingredients” might be an acceptable claim for such a product. Since 1982, except for the conditions in points
(1)and
(2)of the Policy Memo stated above, FSIS modified the guidance on occasion to make it consistent with prevailing policies, to reflect case-by-case decisions made by the Agency, and to update references to regulations. In August 2005, FSIS modified the guidance by acknowledging that sugar, sodium lactate (from a corn source), and natural flavorings from oleoresins or extractives could be acceptable for products bearing “natural” claims. The Agency has come to recognize, based on the controversy that has arisen about “natural” in recent months, that there is significant disagreement about aspects of the August 2005 policy modification, particularly the recognition of sodium lactate as an ingredient that could be included in products that bear a “natural” claim. The Agency has received information that raises questions about when, and if, a food to which sodium lactate has been added would be fairly characterized as “natural.” The Agency has come to believe that this question, like numerous others alluded to in this document, is best resolved through a rulemaking process. Therefore, FSIS has removed the reference to sodium lactate from the 2005 modification. As the Agency moves through the stages of rulemaking on “natural,” “natural” claims for foods in which sodium lactate is used will continue to be considered by FSIS on a case-by-case basis, in light of factors such as the level used, the claimed technical effect of the sodium lactate, and the actual effect that it is having on the product. Advances in Food Processing In recent years, the longstanding policy on “natural” has been challenged by advances in food processing and in packaging methods, *e.g.* , the use of techniques such as high pressure processing, food ingredients that are regulated to provide multiple technical effects, and modified atmosphere packaging. The value and integrity of the 1982 policy is challenged further by new uses of ingredients that have previously been used for flavoring purposes, for example, as antimicrobial agents. While the food safety purpose of using antimicrobial agents is important, their effects raise questions as to whether they can be used in products labeled “natural.” Petition On October 9, 2006, Hormel Foods submitted a petition to FSIS for rulemaking to codify in the Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations a definition of “natural.” The petitioner requested that FSIS begin rulemaking procedures to clarify the circumstances in which the claim may be used on the labeling of a meat or poultry product. The petition states that, consistent with FSIS's longstanding policy, a meat or poultry product should not be labeled as “natural” unless
(1)It does not contain artificial flavorings, artificial coloring ingredients, other artificial or synthetic ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and
(2)it is not more than minimally processed. The petition further states that consumer confidence and consistency in labeling dictate that exceptions for specific chemical preservatives and synthetic ingredients should not be allowed. In support of the need for a regulatory definition of “natural,” the petition explains that consumer interest and concern in natural products are rising. Meat and poultry food manufacturers are seeking to establish marketing presence in this growing area of labeling. The petitioner cites the difficulty in maintaining a level playing field among manufacturers wishing to establish a marketing presence with FSIS's acceptance of ingredients such as sodium lactate and the AMS National Organic Program “national list” of food substances as a reference to support that such ingredients may be considered “natural.” According to the petition, as a result, there is a significant likelihood of inconsistent guidance that provides an opportunity for food manufacturers to manipulate exceptions in the policy and to undercut the intent for “natural” labeling. The petitioner requests that the Agency conduct rulemaking regarding the claim “natural” to provide clarity and certainty in its use of product labeling in the interest of consumer protection and consumer confidence in labeling. Public Meeting FSIS is holding a public meeting in order to gain public input on the use of the “natural” claim and the points raised by the petition, the ideas set out in this notice, and the impact of possible changes discussed herein. Following the public meeting, the Agency intends to initiate rulemaking on “natural” claims. In order to benefit from this public meeting, FSIS seeks input on the following questions concerning the petition discussed above: 1. Considering the types of food processing methods that are commonplace today, as opposed to 24 years ago when the policy on “natural” claims was established, is it reasonable to include as part of the definition of “natural” a stipulation that products, to be eligible to bear the claim, can be no more than minimally processed? Are there any accommodations necessary to allow for certain operations because food processing and packaging techniques for enhancing safety may disqualify a product as “natural?” 2. What are the implications and conflicts that exist with regard to using current and new food processing methods, *e.g.* , chlorine in poultry chillers; steam pasteurization of carcasses; high pressure processing; and modified atmosphere packaging and uses of certain classes of ingredients, *e.g.* , antimicrobial agents, and the meaning of the claim “natural” on the labels of meat and poultry products? 3. Are there available data, in addition to the data provided in the petition, from consumer studies on views, perceptions, and beliefs about what the claim “natural” means on the labels of food products, including meat and poultry products? What do consumers think that the terms “minimal processing,” “artificial and synthetic,” and “preservatives” mean? 4. Do food safety and consumer protection benefits of using what historically may have been considered more than minimal processing techniques and antimicrobial agents outweigh conflicts with the meaning of “natural?” In recent years, FSIS has put a great deal of emphasis on improving food safety. In some ways, however, some definitions of “natural” might unnecessarily undercut this objective. For example, some definitions of “natural” could discourage the use of antimicrobials, which are used to reduce and prevent the growth of *Listeria monocytogenes* in foods. The Agency seeks comment on how it best determines an appropriate and rational balance between the need to ensure the safety of the food supply and the need to ensure that labels are truthful and not misleading. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/.* FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on: December 1, 2006. Barbara J. Masters, Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-9546 Filed 12-1-06; 2:25 pm]
Connectionstraces to 35
Traces to 35 documents
U.S. Code
30 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 73
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 70
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 27 CFR 9
  • 27 CFR 4
  • 49 CFR 571
  • 49 CFR 552
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424.21
  • 50 CFR 17.11
  • 50 CFR 17.12
  • Pub. L. 106-554
  • 50 CFR 424.14(a)
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 50 CFR 10.12
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 50 CFR 600
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 16 USC 582a-582a
  • Pub. L. 95-113
  • 7 USC 3191-3201
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 71.1
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
U.S.C.§ 553
C.F.R.§ 117.458
C.F.R.§ 117.35
C.F.R.§ 51.102
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Cite14 CFR 71
Cite1 CFR 51
Cite14 CFR 73
Cites 65 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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