Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

7,390 words·~34 min read·/register/2007/01/25/07-285

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

BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0716; FRL-8273-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Exemption From VOC Requirements for Sources Subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastics Composites Manufacturing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On July 17, 2006, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)submitted an amendment to its volatile organic compound

(VOC)rules for new facilities for approval into the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). This amended rule exempts facilities subject to the boat manufacturing and reinforced plastics composites production national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) from the Indiana SIP. This rule revision is approvable because the hazardous air pollutant covered by these NESHAPS rules is styrene, which is always used and is also a VOC. Therefore, the VOC control requirements in these rules are always applicable. In addition, the provisions in these rules are enforceable and result in a clearly defined level of VOC reductions dependent upon the specific type of operation. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0716, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* (312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0716. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal at

(312)886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6052, *rosenthal.steven@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is the Purpose and Background for This Action? III. What Is EPA's Analysis of Indiana's Rule Amendment? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is the Purpose and Background for This Action? Currently, new facilities not regulated by a provision in 326 IAC Article 8 (Indiana's VOC Rules) and which have potential emissions of 25 tons or more per year of VOC are required to reduce VOC emissions by using best available control technology

(BACT)under 326 IAC 8-1-6 (new facilities: general reduction requirements). Establishing BACT is a case-by-case determination based on the maximum reduction that is technically feasible, while taking into account energy, environmental and economic impact. Establishing specific standards in place of case-by-case analyses improves the clarity, predictability, and timeliness of permit decisions that are currently subject to 326 IAC 8-1-6. Styrene is classified as both a hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)and a VOC and is the predominant regulated air pollutant from sources subject to 326 IAC 20-48, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 63, Subpart VVVV (Boat manufacturing), and 326 IAC 20-56, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 63, Subpart WWWW (Reinforced Plastics Composites production). Numerous case-by-case BACT analyses for sources subject to 326 IAC 20-48 or 326 IAC 20-56 have been submitted to, and approved by, IDEM. These analyses establish that the emission limitation in the applicable NESHAP satisfies the requirement for BACT. However, 326 IAC 8-1-6 requires the applicant to compile the energy, environmental, and economic analyses of alternative controls, and IDEM staff must review and approve those analyses. For sources subject to 326 IAC 20-48 or 326 IAC 20-56, this rulemaking will reduce the administrative burden for both the applicant and IDEM, since compliance with the applicable NESHAPS will assure that BACT requirements have been addressed and met. Therefore, in order to make its BACT process more efficient, on July 17, 2006, Indiana submitted exemptions to its new facilities, general reduction requirements rule in 326 IAC 8-1-6. III. What Is EPA's Analysis of Indiana's Rule Amendment? This rule revision is approvable because the Hazardous Air Pollutant (styrene) covered by these NESHAPS rules is a VOC, and the provisions in these rules are enforceable and result in specified VOC reductions dependent upon the specific type of operation. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's amendment to its SIP consisting of an amendment to 326 IAC 8-1-6, new facilities; general reduction requirements. This rule exempts boat manufacturers subject to 326 IAC 20-48, NESHAPS for boat manufacturing, or reinforced plastics composites manufacturers subject to 326 IAC 20-56, NESHAPS for reinforced plastics composites production facilities, from the requirement to do a BACT analysis, for the purposes of 326 IAC 8-1-6, provided they comply with the applicable NESHAPS. However, any approval of this exemption to 326 IAC 8-1-6 would not address (or take action on) whether the boat manufacturing or reinforced plastics composites production NESHAPS represent reasonably available control technology, which is the level of control required by EPA for existing sources in ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, any approval would not address (or take action on) whether these NESHAPS regulations satisfy BACT as required by 326 IAC 2-2 (prevention of significant deterioration) or lowest achievable emission rate as required by 326 IAC 2-3 (nonattainment new source review). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed 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.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve 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). Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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 proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed 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). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed 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. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: January 18, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-1099 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Anticipated Delisting of Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants; Prudency Determination for Designation of Critical Habitat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of critical habitat prudency determination. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act

(Act)of 1973 as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq* .) for the purpose of removing *Astragalus desereticus* (Deseret milk-vetch) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose delisting *A. desereticus* because threats to the species as identified in the final listing rule (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999) are not as significant as earlier believed and are managed such that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Upon delisting, *A. desereticus* would be managed pursuant to a Conservation Agreement among the Service and Utah State agencies. In response to a stipulated settlement agreement we have reconsidered whether designating critical habitat for *Astragalus desereticus* would be prudent based on this species' current status. We have determined that such a designation is not prudent because, as described in this advanced notice, we believe that designating critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species (50 CFR 424.12). This is because no area meets the definition of “critical habitat” (i.e., there are no areas essential to the conservation of the species which require special management considerations, and protections afforded by the species' current listing status appear to be no longer necessary). DATES: Comments and information must be submitted before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of the following methods:

(1)You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119.

(2)You may electronic mail (e-mail) your comments to *deseretmilkvetch@fws.gov.* For directions on how to submit comments by e-mail, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section of this notice. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by mail, hand delivery, or fax to 801-975-3331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry England, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119 (telephone 801-975-3330; fax 801-975-3331; e-mail *larry_england@fws.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited This notice announces the opening of a 60-day comment period on our advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. We encourage interested parties to provide comments on *A. desereticus* to the Project Leader, Utah Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES ). We will base rulemaking on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all such information received during the public comment period. Information regarding the following topics would be particularly useful:

(1)Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy;

(2)habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

(3)conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

(4)threat status and trends; and

(5)other new information or data. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. 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 and/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 pursuant to 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. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section. Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII or Microsoft Word file and avoid the use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please include “Attn: *Astragalus desereticus* ” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods described above. Background *Astragalus desereticus* is a perennial, herbaceous, subacaulescent (almost stemless) plant (Barneby 1989) in the legume family. It is approximately 2-6 inches

(in)(5.1-15.2 centimeters (cm)) in height, and has pinnately compound leaves (feather-like arrangement with leaflets displayed on a central stalk) that are 2-4 inches

(in)(5.1-10.2 cm) long with 11-17 leaflets. The flower petals are whitish except for pinkish wings and a lilac keel-tip, and seed pods are 0.4-0.8 in (1.0-2.0 cm) long and densely covered with lustrous hairs. *Astragalus desereticus* habitat is narrowly restricted to steep, sandy bluffs (Barneby 1989) associated with south and west facing slopes (Franklin 1990) within the Moroni Formation at elevations between 5,400 and 5,600 feet (1,646 and 1,707 meters (m)) (Franklin 1990). The current known range of *A. desereticus* is limited to the Birdseye population (Stone 1992) which occupies an area approximately 1 mile

(mi)(1.6 kilometers (km)) long by 0.3 mi (0.5 km) wide, or about 345 acres

(ac)(139.6 hectares (ha)), in the Thistle Creek watershed immediately east of Birdseye, Utah. Approximately 230 ac (93 ha) are owned by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

(UDWR)in the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 25 ac (10.1 ha) are owned by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and 90 ac (36.4 ha) are on private lands owned by several landowners. The WMA extends across the northern and central portions of the population. The mineral rights under the WMA and the majority of the mineral rights under the private lands are owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). Franklin

(1990)estimated the population in May 1990 at fewer than 5,000 plants. Stone

(1992)resurveyed the population in late May 1992 and reported more than 10,000 plants, indicating that a substantial seed bank existed in the soil. He reported that the northern portion of the population appeared the same as in 1990, but high densities of seedlings and young milk-vetch plants occurred locally in the southern portion. Observations of *Astragalus desereticus* on the WMA show that the species population increased by 31 percent from 2000-2005 ( *Astragalus desereticus* monitoring plot data conducted by the Service, 2000 and 2005, USFWS, Salt Lake City, Utah; hereinafter cited as Service 2005). Previous Federal Actions *Astragalus desereticus* was listed as a threatened species due to small population size, restricted distribution, development, cattle grazing (including erosion and trampling), and impacts to pollinator habitat (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999). At the time of listing, we determined that designating critical habitat for *A. desereticus* was not prudent due to the lack of benefit to the species. Specifically, we discussed application of sections 4 and 7 of the Act and management of the species' habitat by UDWR. On July 5, 2005, the Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and the Utah Native Plant Society filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our determination that designating critical habitat was “not prudent” ( *Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and Utah Native Plant Society* v. *Gale Norton* (05-CV-01336-RCL)). In a stipulated settlement agreement, we agreed to submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a new critical habitat determination for *Astragalus desereticus* by January 19, 2007. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)announces our intent to remove *Astragalus desereticus* from the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Plants, based on a combination of recovery and original data error, including:

(1)The species' habitat remains intact and little changed from the early 1990s when monitoring activities were first initiated (UDWR *et al.* 2006);

(2)the population has grown considerably since listing; and

(3)threats are not as significant as we had anticipated at the time of listing, and they are adequately managed such that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. This notice also constitutes our new prudency determination in fulfillment of the stipulated settlement agreement. Review of Available Information Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424.11) set forth procedures for removing species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that the factors considered in delisting a species are the following, as they relate to the definitions of endangered or threatened species:

(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. A delisting must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available to the Secretary after conducting a review of the status of the species. A species may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:

(1)Extinction;

(2)recovery; and

(3)original data for classification in error. When we listed *Astragalus desereticus* , we identified several threats to the species, all but one habitat related. These threats included primary and secondary effects of urban expansion, road construction, and cattle grazing (all identified pursuant to factors A and E). Factor D, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, was also identified as a threat. Information available at this time indicates that some of these threats did not materialize, and others are not as significant as we had anticipated. In addition, a recently completed Conservation Agreement (cited herein as UDWR *et al.* 2006) among the Service, UDWR, UDOT, and SITLA should adequately address our concerns pursuant to factor D. We are not aware of any new threats at this time that were not identified when the species was listed. Although the species' distribution is still small and restricted, there has been little to no habitat disturbance in recent years and there are no foreseeable potential threats to the State-owned portion of the species' range (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Occupied habitat continues to be intact and little has changed since the early 1990s when Stone

(1992)concluded that the population was not subject to any deterministic threats ( *i.e.* , habitat destruction or attempts at eradication) (UDWR *et al.* 2006). One house has been built on private property within the species' range, affecting about 2 ac (0.8 ha), or less than 1 percent of occupied habitat. Residential development could directly affect up to about 10 percent of the species' habitat in the future (England 2006); however, this is not considered to be a significant threat, given that the majority of the species habitat would remain protected on the State WMA for the foreseeable future. We are not aware of any specific development plans at this time. There are currently no plans for highway widening (West 2006). Should highway widening occur in the future, there is adequate right-of-way space to minimize impacts to *Astragalus desereticus* individuals. In addition, mineral development does not appear to be a significant threat because SITLA owns the mineral rights on most of the occupied habitat. These mineral rights have not been leased (Durrant 2006), and SITLA has agreed to work with lessees to ensure disturbances to occupied habitat are avoided or that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Prior to state acquisition of the WMA, livestock grazing (primarily sheep) had occurred for over 100 years on occupied *Astragalus desereticus* habitat (England 2006). The WMA is now being managed as big game winter range and UDWR controls all grazing rights on the property. Cattle grazing has been used as a management tool by UDWR, but only on a limited basis. *A. desereticus* occupied habitat is largely unsuitable for cattle grazing (Green 2006). There is no evidence that current wildlife or livestock browsing levels are negatively impacting *A. desereticus* populations (UDWR *et al.* 2006). A significant portion of the species' range (approximately 67 percent) is managed by UDWR as part of the Northwest Manti WMA. Plants occurring on the WMA constitute the core of the species' population, providing the seed source for reproduction and maintenance of the seed bank (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Historic data and recent observations indicate that the population has grown substantially since listing (Franklin 1990; Stone 1992; Service 2005). Plant density on the WMA , as measured by Service personnel, increased by 31 percent between 2000 and 2005 (Service 2005); therefore, the species and its habitat are considered stable (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Natural events such as drought and fire may occur in the areas of *A. desereticus* habitat. However, we have no information to indicate that natural events have or may cause long-term population reductions. Vegetation within the species' range is an open to sparse woodland overstory, not prone to fire outbreaks (Franklin 1990, England 2006). The Service, UDWR, UDOT, and SITLA signed a Conservation Agreement

(CA)dated October 10, 2006, that was specifically developed to ensure long-term survival and conservation of *Astragalus desereticus* (UDWR *et al* . 2006). The CA is designed to formalize a program of conservation measures that address potential threats and maintain the species' specialized habitat. These measures are consistent with actions taken by UDWR and they have a proven track record of protecting and enhancing the species. Measures include:

(1)Habitat maintenance (including maintenance of the current pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation type with its current diverse understory of native shrubs, grasses and forbs; restricting habitat disturbing actions such as livestock grazing and road and mineral development; ensuring that the destruction of individual plants does not occur and that appropriate mitigation is provided for any unavoidable effects to individual plants or their habitat);

(2)retention of *A. desereticus* habitat on the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti WMA in State of Utah ownership under the management of the UDWR; and

(3)avoidance of herbicide use in *A. desereticus* habitat, including along highway right-of-ways. The CA also includes an annual monitoring program and provides a mechanism to evaluate the feasibility of acquiring private lands to benefit *A. desereticus.* Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the CA is sufficient to address potential future threats to the species on State of Utah lands, providing long-term protection and enhancement measures. In accordance with the CA, efforts will be made to work with adjacent private landowners to provide species conservation measures and easements. However, long-term species conservation can be achieved solely on the State of Utah WMA which provides the core of the species population, providing the seed source for reproduction, and maintenance of the seed bank (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Prudency Determination As mentioned above, we believe that designating critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species (50 CFR 424.12). Specifically, we believe that there are no habitat areas containing physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management consideration or protection, and available information at the time of this determination indicates that the threats to the species identified at the time of listing are no longer significant or have never materialized. *Astragalus desereticus* habitat does not require additional special management considerations or protection given proven and effective management strategies already implemented by the State of Utah. The recently signed CA (UDWR *et al.* 2006) provides assurances for continued management and protection of the species under these proven strategies, which should maintain habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to ensure viable populations for the foreseeable future. Available information indicates that the *A. desereticus* population has grown substantially since listing, and the species and its habitat are considered stable (UDWR *et al.* 2006). Because of the population growth, the Conservation Agreement and the fact that threats identified at the time of listing are no longer significant or have never materialized, available information indicates that habitat destruction is no longer a threat to the species. Therefore, based on our regulations and the information available to us at this time, we find there are no areas that constitute critical habitat for *A. desereticus* because no areas meet the definition of critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Thus, critical habitat designation would not be beneficial to the species. Designation of critical habitat is, therefore, not prudent. Effects of This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announces our intent to propose rulemaking which may remove protections afforded *Astragalus desereticus* under the Act. This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove *A. desereticus* from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this species, this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.96. If we make a final decision to delist *Astragalus desereticus* , the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act would no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of *A. desereticus* or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Until *A. desereticus* is delisted, any Federal actions, or federally funded or permitted actions, must comply with the Act. If delisting occurs, we anticipate that the CA discussed above would guide *A. desereticus* management. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Environmental Policy Act We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). Author The primary author of this document is Larry England, Botanist, Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). Authority The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: January 18, 2007. Todd Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-1062 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 16 Thursday, January 25, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Annual Wildfire Summary Report AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection; Annual Wildfire Summary Report. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before March 26, 2007 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Karyn Wood, Assistant Director for Fire Operations, National Interagency Fire Center, Forest Service, USDA, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to

(208)387-5971 or by e-mail to: *klwood@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise, ID during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to

(208)387-5604 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karyn Wood, Assistant Director for Fire Operations, National Interagency Fire Center,

(208)387-5605. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Annual Wildfire Summary Report. *OMB Number:* 0596-0025. *Expiration Date of Approval:* June 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101

(note)Sec. 10) requires the Forest Service to collect information about wildfire suppression efforts by state and local fire fighting agencies in order to support specific congressional funding requests for the Forest Service State and Private Forestry Cooperative Fire Program. The program provides supplemental funding for state and local fire fighting agencies. The Forest Service works cooperatively with state and local fire fighting agencies to support their fire suppression efforts. State fire marshals use FS-3100-8 (Annual Wildfire Summary Report) to collect information for the Forest Service regarding state and local wildfire suppression efforts. Without this information, the Forest Service would be unable to assess the effectiveness of the State and Private Forestry Cooperative Fire Program. Forest Service managers evaluate the information to determine if the Cooperative Fire Program funds used by state and local fire agencies have improved fire suppression capabilities. The Forest Service shares the information with Congress as part of the annual request for funding for this program. The information collected includes the number of fires responded to by state or local fire fighting agencies within a fiscal year, as well as the following information pertaining to such fires: • Fire type (timber, structural, or grassland), • Size (in acres) of the fires, • Cause of fires (lightning, campfires, arson, etc.), and • Suppression costs associated with the fires. The data gathered is not available from other sources. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 30 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* State fire marshals. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 50. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 25 hours. Comment is invited on:

(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Date: January 17, 2007. Robin L. Thompson, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry. [FR Doc. E7-1065 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Scriver Creek Integrated Restoration Project, Boise National Forest, ID AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Emmett Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)for a resource management project in the Scriver Creek drainage. The entire project area is located in watersheds that drain into the Middle Fork Payette River. The 11,500-acre project area is located approximately 6 miles north of Crouch, Idaho. The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis. The agency also hereby gives notice of the environmental analysis and decisionmaking process that will occur on the proposal so interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to final decision. At this time, no public meetings to discuss the project are planned. *Proposed Action:* Three purposes have been identified for the project:

(1)Modify stand density, structure, species composition, and surface fuels to restore suitable white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl habitat, in addition to providing forest conditions that are more resistant to insects, disease and wildfire;

(2)initiate watershed restoration within the Scriver Creek 6th Field hydrologic unit (subwatershed) to improve watershed conditions and reduce long-term sedimentation caused by existing roads, in addition to reducing road-related impacts to wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources;

(3)provide commercial timber that supports local and/or regional sawmills, employment, and economies. The Proposed Action would implement silvicultural activities, including thinning of commercial trees on 2,826 acres (570 acres of commercial thinning, 1,445 acres of commercial thinning followed by prescribed fire, and 811 acres of commercial thinning followed by machine pile and burning). An estimated 928 acres would be harvested with off-road jammer/tractor, 870 acres would be skyline logged and a helicopter would harvest about 1,028 acres. The Proposed Action would employ silvicultural prescriptions including commercial thin, and thinning of submerchantable trees occurring naturally and within about 846 acres of existing plantations. Approximately 16.5 miles of road would be decommissioned, of which an estimated 0.7 mile or road would be decommissioned while leaving the existing drainage and road prism sufficient for a future motorized trail. Approximately 16.1 miles of road improvement on National Forest System

(NFS)roads 693, 6930, 695B, and 696 would take place. Roughly 2.4 miles of new specified road and approximately 1.1 miles of temporary road would be constructed to facilitate harvest activities. Approximately 3.8 miles of NFS roads 696 and 693B would be realigned to eliminate roads and road segments paralleling within Riparian Conservation Area

(RCA)corridors, and 1.3 miles of NFS road 693A would be reconstructed. Fish passage would be restored by replacing or removing the existing culvert on NFS road 693A and two culverts on NFS roads 693 and 695 would be replaced with fish passable structures. All perennial crossings would have up to 300 feet of surface gravel applied on both sides of the crossing on those roads used in conjunction with timber harvest (except for roads to be decommissioned). Twelve helicopter landings would be developed. Except for administrative use, about 20.5 miles of authorized roads would be closed year-round to motorized use after vegetation treatments are complete. *Preliminary Issues:* Preliminary concerns with the Proposed Action include potential impacts on water quality and terrestrial wildlife species. *Possible Alternatives to the Proposed Action:* One alternative to the Proposed Action that has been discussed thus far is a No Action alternative. Other alternatives will likely be developed as issues are identified and information received. *Decisions to be Made:* The Boise National Forest Supervisor will decide the following:

(1)Should vegetation be managed within the project area at this time, and if so, which stands should be treated and what silvicultural systems applied?

(2)Should roads be built at this time, and if so, how many miles should be built and where should they occur within the project area?

(3)Should identified road maintenance activities occur at this time?

(4)Should road decommissioning and realignment take place and which roads and how would this happen?

(5)What design features, mitigation measures, and/or monitoring should be applied to the project? DATES: Comments concerning the proposed project and analysis are encouraged and should be postmarked or received within 30 days following publication of this announcement in the **Federal Register.** ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Emmett Ranger District, ATTN: Ann Roseberry, 1805 Highway 16, Room No. 5, Emmett, ID 83617; or sent electronically to *comments-intermtn-boise-emmett@fs.fed.us.* Electronic comments must be submitted in plain text or another format compatible with Microsoft Word. Comments may also be delivered to the above address during regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday. Comments can also be submitted by phone at 208-365-7000 or fax to 208-365-7037. Comments received in response to this request will be available for public inspection and will be released in their entirety if requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information can be obtained from Ann Roseberry at the address mentioned above or by calling 208-365-7000. *Schedule:* Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), July 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), December 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire project area drains into the Middle Fork Payette River and, although there are no 303(d)/305(b) listed streams within the project area, Scriver Creek drains to a segment of the Middle Fork Payette River, which is currently listed in Section 4a, Impaired Waterbodies with a TMDL complete for sediment (Idaho, State of, 1998a). A TMDL is currently in place and addresses the entire length of the Middle Fork Payette River. The entire project area lies within Management Area 14 (Lower Middle Fork Payette River), discussed on pages III-254 through III-265 in the Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Several Management Prescription Categories

(MPCs)apply within this management area. However, only MPC 5.2 occurs within the project area. The Proposed Action includes management activities within MPC 5.2 only. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register.** The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the FEIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F. 2d 1016, 1002 (9th Cir., 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the DEIS 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. *Responsible Official:* Richard A. Smith, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709. Dated: January 18, 2007. Richard A. Smith, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-285 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents