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 · 2007-02-13 · Department of Veterans Affairs · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

16,481 words·~75 min read·/register/2007/02/13/07-618

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 29 Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AM35 Reasonable Charges for Medical Care or Services AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)medical regulations concerning “reasonable charges” for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to certain veterans for nonservice-connected disabilities. We propose to change the process for determining interim billing charges when a new Diagnosis Related Group
(DRG)code or Current Procedure Terminology/Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (CPT/HCPCS) code identifier is assigned to a particular type or item of medical care or service and VA has not yet established a charge for the new identifier. This process is designed to provide interim billing charges that are very close to what the new billing charges would be when the charges for the new identifiers are established in accordance with the regulations. We also propose to change the regulations by removing all of the provisions for discounts of billed charges. This is expected to reduce or eliminate duplicate discounting and thereby prevent unintended underpayments to the government. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by: Mail or hand delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to
(202)273-9026; e-mail through *http://www.Regulations.gov.* Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AM35.” All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202)273-9515 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Romona Greene, Manager of Rates and Charges, VHA Chief Business Office (168), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)254-0361. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to amend VA's medical regulations that were established under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1729 and are set forth in 38 CFR 17.101 (referred to below as the regulations). The regulations establish methodologies for determining reasonable charges for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to certain veterans. Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1729, VA has the right to recover or collect reasonable charges for such medical care and services from a third party to the extent that the veteran or a provider of the care or services would be eligible to receive payment for: • A nonservice-connected disability for which the veteran is entitled to care (or the payment of expenses of care) under a health plan contract, • A nonservice-connected disability incurred incident to the veteran's employment and covered under a worker's compensation law or plan that provides reimbursement or indemnification for such care and services, or • A nonservice-connected disability incurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident in a State that requires automobile accident reparations (no-fault) insurance. However, consistent with the statutory authority at 38 U.S.C. 1729(c)(2)(B), a third-party payer liable for such medical care and services under a health plan contract has the option of paying, to the extent of its coverage, either the billed charges or the amount the third-party payer demonstrates it would pay for care or services furnished by providers other than entities of the United States for the same care or services in the same geographic area. Except for charges for prescription drugs, the regulations were promulgated to contain methodologies to establish VA charges that replicate, insofar as possible, the 80th percentile of community charges (see 68 FR 56876). VA's methodologies to determine reasonable charges for prescription drugs are based on VA costs and contained in 38 CFR 17.102. Charges When a New DRG or CPT/HCPCS Code Identifier Does Not Have an Established Charge The methodology for certain charges is based on adjustments to average charges developed from a national data base for DRG codes and CPT/HCPCS codes. The current regulations at § 17.101(a)(8) provide for the development of charges when VA does not have an established charge for a new DRG or CPT/HCPCS code. We propose to revise § 17.101(a)(8) to make it more clear and accurate. The proposed changes are explained below. The current regulations at § 17.101(a)(8), provide that when VA does not have an established charge for new DRG codes or CPT/HCPCS, then a charge would be developed by using the first option out of the five specified options for which a charge could be determined. Accordingly, if an applicable charge could be determined under the first option then that would be used without considering any other option. If a charge could not be determined under the first option but could be determined under the second option then the second option would be used, and so on. We do not propose to change the substance of the first two options which would continue to be set forth at § 17.101(a)(8)(i) and
(ii)(they are included in the text portion of this document with nonsubstantive changes for purposes of clarity). We also do not propose to change the substance of the last option (it would be moved from § 17.101(a)(8)(v) to § 17.101(a)(8)(viii) and is included in the text portion of this document with nonsubstantive changes for purposes of clarity). The proposed third option would continue to be located at § 17.101(a)(8)(iii). It concerns prosthetic devices and durable equipment. Under the current regulations for this option, VA's charges for prosthetic devices and durable equipment reflect the actual cost to VA. We propose to change this option to provide that the charge would be 1 and 1/2 times VA's actual cost. As noted above, the regulations were intended to contain methodologies to establish VA charges that replicate, insofar as possible, the 80th percentile of community charges. However, billing charges under the current third option fall short of this mark. Based on our expertise and experience with charging trend analyses, we have concluded that these proposed changes would provide interim billing charges that would be as close as possible to what the new billing charges will be when the charges for the new identifiers are established in accordance with the regulations. Under the current regulations involving the fourth option, VA's charges for care or services consist of the Medicare participating provider allowed charge amount (if one could be determined), geographically adjusted using the applicable geographic area adjustment factors that are described in the regulations. We propose to change this option to consist of four different parts, two for new identifier DRG codes and two for new identifier CPT/HCPCS codes, as stated in the text portion of this document at § 17.101(a)(8)(iv) through (vii). Based on our expertise and experience with charging trend analyses, we have concluded that these proposed changes would provide interim billing charges that would be as close as possible to what the new billing charges will be when the charges for the new identifiers are established in accordance with the regulations. Discounts The current regulations at § 17.101(e)(5), (f)(4), (f)(5)(ii), and
(g)include provisions to discount billing and thereby reflect industry standards. As explained below, we are proposing to change the regulations to discontinue applying discounts for billed charges by removing all of the provisions in the regulations that provide for such discounts. The current regulations at § 17.101(e)(5) provide discounts when multiple surgical procedures were performed during the same outpatient encounter by a provider or provider team as indicated by multiple surgical CPT/HCPCS procedure codes. Under these provisions, the surgical procedure with the highest facility charge under the CPT/HCPCS procedure code is billed at 100 percent of the charges established under the regulations, the second highest at 25 percent, the third highest at 15 percent, and the rest at no charge. The current regulations at § 17.101(f)(4) set forth a mechanism to establish discount factors for specified charge-significant CPT/HCPCS code modifiers. Under this authority, discounts are based on multipliers as follows: 51—Multiplier procedures 0.94, 52—Reduced services 0.70, 53—Discontinued procedure 0.97, 62—Two surgeons 0.92, and 80—Assistant surgeon 0.31. The current regulations at § 17.101(f)(5)(ii) set forth discounts for charges for the professional services of certain providers. In this regard, the regulations provide that the charges for care would be the indicated percentages of the amount that would be charged if the care had been provided by a physician: • Nurse practitioner: 85 percent. • Clinical nurse specialist: 85 percent. • Physician Assistant: 85 percent. • Clinical psychologist: 80 percent. • Clinical social worker: 75 percent. • Dietitian: 75 percent. • Clinical pharmacist: 80 percent. The current regulations at § 17.101(g) provide for a 50 percent discount of the charges for professional anesthesia services provided by medically directed certified registered nurse anesthetists. All of the discounts explained above, which are the same discounts that apply to billing under the Medicare program, reflect industry practices for billing. This is the same rationale described in the **Federal Register** for establishing paragraphs (f)(4), and (f)(5)(ii) (see 63 FR 54758). However, after the discounts are applied to the billed charges, virtually all third party payers apply the same discounts a second time (discounts are included in industry software), thereby reducing the billed charges below what was intended by the regulations. We believe that the duplicate discounting would cause unintended underpayments to the government of approximately $24 million annually. Accordingly, to eliminate duplicate discounting and to help ensure that the regulations work as intended, we propose to remove all of the provisions in the regulations that provide for such discounts. These amendments would not affect discounts applied by third party payers under industry billing practices. Comment Period We are providing a 30-day comment period instead of a 60-day comment period. We wish to consider any relevant comments prior to taking any regulatory action. However, subject to consideration of comments, it appears that it is necessary to take expeditious action on the proposed rule. As noted above, the regulations were promulgated to contain methodologies to establish VA charges that replicate, insofar as possible, the 80th percentile of community charges. The proposed changes regarding interim charges based on new DRG code or CPT/HCPCS code identifiers are intended to make the interim charges as close as possible to what the new billing charges will be when the charges for the new identifiers are established in accordance with the regulations, and, consequently, to make the interim charges as close as possible to the 80th percentile of community charges. With respect to the proposed changes regarding discounts, it is necessary to take expeditious action to prevent unintended underpayments to the government. Under the current regulations discounts are applied by VA to the billed charges. However, inconsistent with the intent of the regulations, virtually all third party payers apply the same discounts a second time (discounts are included in industry software), thereby reducing the billed charges below what was intended by the regulations. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would affect mainly large insurance companies. The proposed rule might have an insignificant impact on a few small entities that do an inconsequential amount of their business with VA. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans. Approved: November 3, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on February 7, 2007. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below: PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 17.101, paragraph
(g)introductory text is amended by removing “50 percent” and adding in its place “100 percent”; and by revising paragraphs (a)(8), (e)(5), (f)(4), and (f)(5)(ii) to read as follows: § 17.101 Collection or recovery by VA for medical care or services provided or furnished to a veteran for a nonservice-connected disability. (a)* * *
(8)*Charges when a new DRG or CPT/HCPCS code identifier does not have an established charge.* When VA does not have an established charge for a new DRG or CPT/HCPCS code to be used in determining a billing charge under the applicable methodology in this section, then VA will establish an interim billing charge or establish an interim charge to be used for determining a billing charge under the applicable methodology in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (a)(8)(viii) of this section.
(i)If a new DRG or CPT/HCPCS code identifier replaces a DRG or CPT/HCPCS code identifier, the most recently established charge for the identifier being replaced will continue to be used for determining a billable charge under paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), or
(l)of this section until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new identifier.
(ii)If medical care or service is provided or furnished at VA expense by a non-VA provider and a charge cannot be established under paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section, then VA's billing charge for such care or service will be the amount VA paid to the non-VA provider without additional calculations under this section.
(iii)If a new CPT/HCPCS code has been established for a prosthetic device or durable medical equipment subject to paragraph
(l)of this section and a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) or
(ii)of this section, VA's charge for such prosthetic device or durable medical equipment will be 1 and 1/2 times VA's average actual cost without additional calculations under this section.
(iv)If a new medical identifier DRG code has been assigned to a particular type of medical care or service and a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through
(iii)of this section, then until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new medical identifier DRG code, the interim charge for use in paragraph
(b)of this section will be the average charge of all medical DRG codes that are within plus or minus 10 of the numerical relative weight assigned to the new medical identifier DRG code.
(v)If a new surgical identifier DRG code has been assigned to a particular type of medical care or service and a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through
(iv)of this section, then until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new surgical identifier DRG code, the interim charge for use in paragraph
(b)of this section will be the average charge of all surgical DRG codes that are within plus or minus 10 of the numerical relative weight assigned to the new surgical identifier DRG code.
(vi)If a new identifier CPT/HCPCS code is assigned to a particular type or item of medical care or service and a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through
(v)of this section, then until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new identifier for use in paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), or
(l)of this section, VA's billing charge will be the Medicare allowable charge multiplied by 1 and 1/2 , without additional calculations under this section.
(vii)If a new identifier CPT/HCPCS code is assigned to a particular type or item of medical care or service and a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through
(vi)of this section, then until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new identifier, VA's interim charge for use in paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), or
(l)of this section, will be the charge for the CPT/HCPCS code that is closest in characteristics to the new CPT/HCPCS code.
(viii)If a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (a)(8)(vii) of this section, then VA will not charge for the care or service.
(e)* * *
(5)Multiple surgical procedures. When multiple surgical procedures are performed during the same outpatient encounter by a provider or provider team as indicated by multiple surgical CPT/HCPCS procedure codes, then each CPT/HCPCS procedure code will be billed at 100 percent of the charges established under this section.
(f)* * *
(4)*Charge adjustment factors for specified CPT/HCPCS code modifiers.* Surcharges are calculated in the following manner: From the Part B component of the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5 percent Sample, the ratio of weighted average billed charges for CPT/HCPCS codes with the specified modifier to the weighted average billed charge for CPT/HCPCS codes with no charge modifier is calculated, using the frequency of procedure codes with the modifier as weights in both weighted average calculations. The resulting ratios constitute the surcharge factors for specified charge-significant CPT/HCPCS code modifiers.
(5)* * *
(ii)*Charges for professional services.* Charges for the professional services of the following providers will be 100 percent of the amount that would be charged if the care had been provided by a physician:
(A)Nurse practitioner.
(B)Clinical nurse specialist.
(C)Physician Assistant.
(D)Clinical psychologist.
(E)Clinical social worker.
(F)Dietitian.
(G)Clinical pharmacist. [FR Doc. E7-2391 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-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 Jollyville Plateau Salamander as Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Jollyville Plateau salamander ( *Eurycea tonkawae* ) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Jollyville Plateau salamander may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is comprehensive, we are soliciting information and data regarding this species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on February 13, 2007. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by April 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or via electronic mail at *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/* . The petition is available at *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/* . Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this petition and our finding to the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pine, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the Jollyville Plateau salamander. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the Jollyville Plateau salamander. We are seeking information regarding the species' historical and current status and distribution, its biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to the species and its habitat. We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (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 to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 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 make this finding within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding 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)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioner that we determined reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the petition and information otherwise available in our files at the time of petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process in making this 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. Petition On June 13, 2005, we received a formal petition, dated June 10, 2005, from Save Our Springs Alliance
(SOSA)requesting that the Jollyville Plateau salamander ( *Eurycea tonkawae* ) be listed as an endangered species in accordance with section 4 of the Act. Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2005 and a substantial portion of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006. On September 29, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from SOSA for failing to make a timely 90-day finding. On December 1, 2005, we sent a letter to SOSA informing them that we would not likely make a petition finding during the fiscal year of 2006 due to funding limitations. Subsequently, funding became available to act on the petition. On August 10, 2006, SOSA filed a complaint against the Service for failure to issue a 90-day petition finding under section 4 of the Act for the finding on the Jollyville Plateau salamander. In our December 11, 2006, motion for summary judgment, we informed the court that based on current funding and workload projections, we believed that we could complete a 90-day finding by February 6, 2007, and if we determined that the petition provided substantial scientific and commercial data, we could make a 12-month warranted or not warranted finding by February 6, 2008. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Species Information The petitioners presented sufficient, reliable information related to the taxonomic status of the Jollyville Plateau salamander. This species was first described as *Eurycea tonkawae* in the scientific journal *Herpetological Monographs* by Chippendale et al. (2000, pp. 1-48) based on morphological characteristics and genetic analysis. We found no information in our files to refute the taxonomic status of the Jollyville Plateau salamander as a species or a listable entity under the Act. The Jollyville Plateau salamander is a neotenic member of the family Plethodontidae. Neotenic salamanders do not metamorphose into a terrestrial form. They retain external gills and are aquatic throughout their lives (City of Austin 2001, p. 3). Jollyville Plateau salamanders are approximately 1.5 to 2 inches (38 to 51 millimeters) at maturity (City of Austin 2001, p. 5). Jollyville Plateau salamanders are distributed within springs, spring-runs, and water-bearing karst formations in the Jollyville Plateau area of the Edwards Aquifer in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas (City of Austin 2001, p. 3). Karst is defined as “a type of terrain that is formed by the slow dissolution of calcium carbonate from limestone bedrock by mildly acidic groundwater. This process creates numerous cave openings, cracks, fissures, fractures, and sinkholes, and the bedrock resembles a honeycomb” (Veni and Associates 2002, p. 70). The salamander's surface habitat is characterized by a typical depth of less than one foot (0.31 meters) of cool, well oxygenated water containing clean, loose substrates of boulder, cobble, and gravel (City of Austin 2001, p. 128). *Eurycea* species in Texas have been found to eat a variety of benthic macroinvertebrates (insects in their larval stage that are found at the bottom of a body of water), such as amphipods and chironomid larvae (midges) (City of Austin 2001, pp. 5-6). 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 Wildlife and Plants. 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)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. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be threatened or endangered. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the Jollyville Plateau salamander 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 its survival. The following evaluation of these threats was based on information provided or cited in the petition and found to be reliable. Unless otherwise indicated in this threats analysis section, the references cited were cited in the petition. The petition cited the draft Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan that was not finalized at the time we received the petition. However, we verified the information using the finalized, signed version (Service 2005), and we reference the page numbers from the finalized version in this finding. The petition also cites the Service's draft 2002 Candidate Listing and Priority Assessment Form for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander, which was never finalized, and our 1997 Final Rule to list the Barton Springs salamander (62 FR 23377) as endangered. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition states that Jollyville Plateau salamanders are found only within the rapidly developing counties of Travis and Williamson, Texas, where they are dependent upon a constant supply of clean water from the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer (City of Austin 2001, p. 3). Flows may also originate from the Trinity Aquifer during droughts (Cole 1995, pp. 23-33). As of 2006, City of Austin data reflect that central Texas watersheds occupied by Jollyville Plateau salamanders include Brushy Creek, Bull Creek, Buttercup Creek, Lake Creek, Lake Travis, Shoal Creek, South Brushy Creek, Walnut Creek, and West Bull Creek. The petitioner notes that the Edwards and Trinity aquifers are localized, small, and highly susceptible to pollution, drying, or draining (Chippendale et al. 2000, p. 36). Information, including a map, provided with the petition depict that the majority of Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat is found in urbanized areas or areas scheduled for development (City of Austin 2005a, map; O'Donnell 2005, slide 12; Cole 1995, p. 28). The petition states that once natural vegetation in a watershed is replaced with impervious cover, rainfall is converted to surface runoff instead of filtering through the ground (Schueler 1991, p. 114). Impervious cover is any surface material, such as roads, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, paved surfaces, or compacted soil, that prevents water from filtering into the soil (Arnold and Gibbons 1996, p. 244). The petition cites an assessment by The Center for Watershed Protection that impervious cover exceeding 10 percent causes a loss of sensitive aquatic organisms, reduction in stream biodiversity, water quality degradation, stream warming, and channel instability within a watershed (Schueler 1994, pp. 100-106). The City of Austin 2001 report (pp. 16-39), which was cited in the petition, indicates that six of the nine tributaries included in a Jollyville Plateau salamander monitoring study conducted by the City of Austin from 1996 to the present have impervious cover estimates greater than 15 percent. The petition states that more than half of the salamander's known localities are located within the Bull Creek watershed. The Bull Creek watershed contains varying degrees of urban development (City of Austin 2001, pp. 21-33): As a whole, it is more than 50 percent developed and has an average impervious cover estimate of 21-24 percent (City of Austin 1999, p. ii). However, where the main stem of Bull Creek flows through the Balcones Canyonland Preserve (BCP), some of the best quality habitat remaining for the Jollyville Plateau salamander exists (O'Donnell 2005, slide 4; O'Donnell 2006). The petition states that developed tributaries occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander had higher levels of chloride, nitrate-nitrogen, specific conductance, magnesium, potassium, sodium, sulfate, and fecal coliform compared to undeveloped tributaries (p < 0.05) over the course of the City of Austin's monitoring study (City of Austin 2001, p. 59). Developed tributaries also experienced lower mean adult and juvenile Jollyville Plateau salamander abundances per square meter of wetted surface over the course of the study when compared to undeveloped tributaries (p < 0.05) (City of Austin 2001, p. 99). Information provided by the petitioner citing lower salamander abundances and decreased water quality in developed tributaries is corroborated by information in our files. The petition presents information about the negative effects of sedimentation on urban stream ecosystems and aquatic organisms. Sediments are mixtures of silt, sand, clay, and organic debris that are washed into tributaries during storm events (White and White 1968, p. 116; Ford and Williams 1989, p. 537; Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 13). Due to high organic carbon content, sediments can act as a sink and/or transport mechanism for contaminants. Contaminant compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and pesticides can be absorbed into sediment particles in concentrations that are orders of magnitude greater than found in the water column (Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 12). The petition adds that PAH exposure can cause impaired reproduction, reduced growth and development, and tumors or cancer in species of amphibians and reptiles. PAH exposure can also cause reduced survival, altered physiological function, and changes in species populations and community composition of freshwater invertebrates (Albers 2003, p. 352). The petition does not present evidence that these contaminant compounds are affecting the Jollyville Plateau salamanders specifically. However, information on the effects of sedimentation and contaminant compounds on amphibians, reptiles, and other aquatic organisms provided by the petitioner is corroborated by information in our files. Contamination from sedimentation has been documented to negatively affect reproduction, growth, and development in amphibians and reptiles, and has been shown to reduce survival for aquatic invertebrates, the salamander's food source. The petition also states that sediments suspended in water can clog gill structures of aquatic organisms and impair their ability to avoid predators or locate food sources and potential mates (Garton 1977, p. 443; Schueler 1987, p. 1.5). Excessive deposition of sediment can physically reduce the amount of available habitat and protective cover for aquatic organisms by clogging spaces under or between the pebbles and rocks that are used for protective cover (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. 1128). Sedimentation from construction events that began in 2000 has affected one of the two City of Austin reference sites used in the aforementioned salamander monitoring study. The site, used as a control for the study due to its undeveloped status at the beginning of the study in 1996, can no longer be used as an undeveloped control due to the impacts corresponding to an increase in active construction upstream, including loss of salamander, benthic macroinvertebrate, and aquatic plant habitat (O'Donnell 2005, slide 14). We verified the petitioner's claim with information in our files indicating that, following construction, the City observed a decline in Jollyville Plateau salamander sightings in this tributary from more than 70 individuals per survey before the construction to rarely more than 1 after the construction began (O'Donnell 2006). The City of Austin monitoring study provides evidence that, as sediment deposition increases, salamander abundances significantly decrease (p < 0.01) (City of Austin 2001, pp. 101, 126). In addition, the petition cites observations by City of Austin biologists involved in the study that indicated that once a sediment layer is established, Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat is lost (O'Donnell 2005, slide 23). Information provided by the petitioner on the effects of sedimentation is corroborated by information in our files. The petition suggests that frequent human visitation and gas line or sewage spills associated with developed tributaries may negatively affect Jollyville Plateau salamanders and their habitat. The petition cites documentation from the City of Austin of disturbed vegetation, vandalism, and the destruction of travertine deposits by foot traffic at one of their salamander monitoring sites in the Bull Creek watershed. The drainage area was also impacted by a construction sediment spill in 1994 (City of Austin 2001, p. 21). Several sewage spills occurred in another drainage area within the Bull Creek watershed during the mid-1990s, and the area still contains a subsurface sanitary sewer line that, if a leak occurs, could affect the salamanders living downstream (City of Austin 2001, pp. 21, 74). The petition also provides information regarding several spills affecting a tributary supporting Jollyville Plateau salamanders located in the Shoal Creek watershed, including a 50-gallon gas spill that occurred in 1987, a several gallon hydraulic fluid spill in 1995, followed by a 50-gallon diesel spill in 1996. There is at least one leaking underground storage tank located in this tributary (City of Austin 2001, p. 16). Information provided by the petitioner regarding gas, sediment, and sewage spills in the range of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is corroborated by information in our files. The petition states that Jollyville Plateau salamander deformities, mainly in the form of curvature of the spine, have been found at two of the City's Bull Creek watershed monitoring sites (City of Austin 2001, p. 120). The petition states that the City of Austin documented elevated levels of nutrients, particularly nitrates, at these sites and suggested that this was the cause of the deformities (O'Donnell et al. 2005, p. 11). The petition discusses these deformities as part of listing factor C, “Disease or Predation.” But, because the petition suggests that elevated nitrates are the likely cause of the spinal curvatures, we are including this information under Factor A, as a form of habitat modification. Information in our files states that possible sources of spinal curvature in amphibians include pathogens, inadequate nutrition, and contamination. After several labs conducted necropsies on some of the affected Jollyville Plateau salamanders, no obvious pathogens emerged as the cause (O'Donnell et al. 2005, p. 11). Information in the City's report indicates that nitrate levels at both of these sites have averaged six times greater than undeveloped Edwards Aquifer springs (City of Austin 2001, p. 120; O'Donnell et al. 2005, p. 11). Other studies cited in the City's report include documentation of salamander larvae and tadpoles developing bent tails, body swelling, and other deformities when continuously exposed to similar nitrate levels for more than five days (City of Austin 2001, p. 123; O'Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 11-12). Thus, environmental toxins are suspected by City biologists as a leading cause of the spinal curvature (O'Donnell et al., 2005, p. 11). Information in our files demonstrates that deformities continue to be observed, include missing eyes, limbs, and digits (O'Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 11-12). Information provided by the petitioner regarding the documented elevated nitrates and Jollyville Plateau salamander deformities is corroborated by information in our files. The petition states that the City of Austin has plans to build a Water Treatment Plant in the Balcones Canyonland Preserve
(BCP)above the main stem of Bull Creek, which is considered one of the best undeveloped habitats remaining for the Jollyville Plateau salamander (O'Donnell 2005, slide 4, slide 12; O'Donnell 2006). Although most of the creek's watershed is developed or slated for development, the main stem of the creek runs through the BCP, which has been providing water quality protection for the salamander by preventing development along that part of the creek (O'Donnell 2005, slide 4; O'Donnell 2006). The petition states the new plant will likely degrade the water quality of the creek as well as increase sediment loads within the salamander's habitat (O'Donnell 2006). Information provided by the petitioner on a new water treatment plant slated for development above the main stem of Bull Creek is corroborated by information in our files. We consider the petition to present substantial information that the Jollyville Plateau salamander may be threatened by habitat-based threats such as water quality degradation. The petition also reports that increasing demand on the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer for local human water consumption and diversion of surface runoff that would otherwise recharge the aquifer could result in lower spring surface discharge. Hundreds of springs have dried up in Texas due to human impacts on the aquifers, such as over-pumping, increases in impervious cover, and surface run-off diversion (Schram 1995, p. 90). To exacerbate this issue, the portion of the Edwards Aquifer underlying the Jollyville Plateau is relatively shallow, with a high elevation, thus being likely to dry out at the surface during periods of drought (Cole 1995, pp. 26-27). Information provided by the petitioner regarding increasing demand for water from the segment of the aquifer containing the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the susceptibility of that portion of the aquifer to dry out at the surface, and the documented effects of human impacts and over-pumping on aquifer systems in Texas is corroborated by information in our files. Previous Service documents have discussed reduced spring flow as a potential threat to similar *Eurycea* salamanders occurring in the Edwards Aquifer (Service 2005, pp. 1.6-22, 1.6-23). We are not making a finding on whether the petitioners have presented substantial information that the Jollyville Plateau salamander may be threatened by habitat-based threats associated with aquifer depletion. We will consider information related to this issue during the status review. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes According to the petition, overutilization is not considered a threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander at this time. C. Disease or Predation The petition contends that City of Austin biologists found Jollyville Plateau salamander abundances were negatively correlated with the abundance of predatory centrarchid fish (carnivorous freshwater fish belonging to the sunfish family), such as black bass ( *Micropterus spp.* ) or sunfish ( *Lepomis spp.* ) (City of Austin 2001, p. 102). Information provided by the petitioner on the negative correlation documented between salamander abundances and the abundance of predatory fish is corroborated by information in our files. There have been no direct observations of negative interactions between Jollyville Plateau salamanders and centrachid fish. Predation could have an additive effect to other threats occurring and may be significant in combination with those threats. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petitioner states that there is currently no protection for the Jollyville Plateau salamander provided by Texas State Law. The species is not listed on the Texas State List of Threatened or Endangered Species. There were no sources cited in the petition regarding this statement, but this was verified by reviewing the State's list of threatened and endangered species (TPWD 2006, pp. 2-3). The Balcones Canyonland Preserve
(BCP)offers some water quality benefits to portions of the Bull Creek, West Bull Creek, Buttercup Creek, and Lake Travis watersheds through preservation of open space over their recharge zones (Service 1996a, pp. 2-28-2-29). However, some of the sites known to be occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander within the BCP can be affected by changes in land use and subsequent water quality degradation occurring in portions of contributing watersheds outside of the preserved tracts. Specifically, the preserved tracts within the BCP do not appear to be effective at reducing nutrient levels at some salamander sites (City of Austin 1999, p. 6-11). In addition, Jollyville Plateau salamanders are not a covered species under the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under which the preserves were established (Service 1996b, pp. 1-10). The petition states that the City of Austin's water quality ordinances provide some water quality regulatory protection to the salamander's habitat, but do not appear to be effective at reducing nutrient levels. The petition also notes that less than 20 percent of all development in the Bull Creek watershed is subject to the most stringent regulations, while the other 80 percent was developed prior to the passage of these regulations in 1993 (City of Austin 1999, p. 6-11). Additionally, regulations aimed at limiting impervious cover over the Edwards Aquifer have been exempted by numerous grandfathering laws (Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code as discussed in Service 2005, p. 1.6-17). There are several State regulations, such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's
(TCEQ)Edwards Rules, along with some municipal ordinances, that are designed to minimize water quality degradation from new development. The Edwards Rules regulate activities that may pollute the Edwards Aquifer. The Edwards Rules do not address land use, impervious cover limitations, nonpoint source pollution, or application of fertilizers and pesticides over the recharge zone (The Edwards Aquifer Rules as discussed in 62 FR 23389; The Edwards Aquifer Rules as discussed in Service 2005, p. 1.6-16). Based on trend data that shows degradation of water quality at Barton Springs over the years, existing regulations for maintaining water quality in the Edwards Aquifer may not adequately protect the salamander (City of Austin 2005b, p. 20 as cited in Service 2005, p. 1.6-16). Information provided by the petitioner on the inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms is corroborated by information in our files. Data indicate that water quality degradation in streams occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander and other areas in the Edwards Aquifer such as Barton Springs continue to occur despite the existence of current regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we consider the petition to present substantial information that inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a substantial threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence The petition states that natural factors negatively affecting the Jollyville Plateau salamander include its limited distribution and amphibians' sensitivity to water quality degradation. Amphibians, especially their eggs and larvae, are sensitive to many pollutants including heavy metals, insecticides, nitrates, salts, and petroleum hydrocarbons (Harfenist et al. 1989, pp. 4-57). In addition, crustaceans on which the Jollyville Plateau salamander feeds are especially sensitive to water pollution (Phipps et al. 1995, p. 282). Information provided by the petitioner on the Jollyville Plateau salamander's limited distribution and amphibian sensitivity to pollutants is corroborated by information in our files. As discussed under Factor A, the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range, Jollyville Plateau salamanders exhibit potential sensitivities to certain aspects of water quality degradation such as increased sedimentation from construction events (O'Donnell 2006) and/or abnormal development in areas with high nitrate levels (O'Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 11-12). Thus, we find that the petition presents substantial information that natural factors may increase susceptibility to other threats. Finding We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and evaluated that information we deemed reliable to make this finding. We used other reliable information that was readily available in our files or readily available to us at the time of the petition review to evaluate the reliability of information in the petition. The petition presents evidence of water quality degradation resulting in lower salamander abundances, a loss in salamander habitat, and possible salamander deformities within urbanized areas of their habitat. The petition also presents evidence of expanding urbanization throughout their range, including areas that are currently considered protected. The information in our files supports the petition's statements regarding these threats to the salamander. Thus, we believe that the petition presents substantial information indicating water quality degradation combined with the species' limited distribution may increase extinction risk. In addition, existing available regulatory mechanisms appear potentially insufficient to control water quality levels in salamander habitat and prevent the progressive decline of the habitat upon which the Jollyville Plateau salamander depends. On the basis of this review and evaluation, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the Jollyville Plateau salamander may be warranted. As such, we are initiating a further status review of the Jollyville Plateau salamander to determine whether listing the species under the Act is warranted. We have also reviewed the available information to determine if the existing and foreseeable threats pose an emergency to this species. The immediacy of the threats described in the petition do not appear to be so great to a significant portion of the total population that the routine listing process would not be sufficient to prevent large losses that could otherwise result in extinction. Furthermore, we do not believe that expected losses of the salamander during the normal listing process would risk the continued existence of the entire listed species. For these reasons, we have determined that an emergency listing is not warranted at this time. However, if at any time we determine that emergency listing of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is warranted, we will seek to initiate an emergency listing process. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Author The primary author of this notice is the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (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: February 6, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-2289 Filed 2-12-07; 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 San Felipe Gambusia 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 San Felipe gambusia ( *Gambusia clarkhubbsi* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the San Felipe gambusia may be warranted. Therefore, we will not initiate a further 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 the San Felipe gambusia or threats to it or its habitat at any time. This information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of this species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on February 13, 2007. You may submit new information concerning this species for our consideration at any time. ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this subspecies to us at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pine, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ) (telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (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 to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We base this finding on information submitted with the petition, referenced in the petition, and determined to be reliable after review, as well as information available in our files or otherwise available to us at the time of the petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we make this finding within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding 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)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the petition and information available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 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. The substantiality test is applied only to the reliable information supporting the petition. On June 13, 2005, we received a formal petition, dated June 10, 2005, from Save Our Springs Alliance
(SOSA)requesting that the San Felipe gambusia ( *Gambusia clarkhubbsi* ) be listed as an endangered species in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The West Texas Springs Alliance was also listed as a petitioner, but did not provide a representative's signature. The petition is available at *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/.* Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2005 and a substantial portion of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006. On September 29, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from SOSA for failing to make a timely 90-day finding. On December 1, 2005, we sent a letter to SOSA informing them that we would likely not make a petition finding during the fiscal year 2006 due to funding limitations. Subsequently, funding became available to act on the petition. On August 10, 2006, SOSA filed a complaint against the Service for failure to issue a 90-day petition finding on the San Felipe gambusia under section 4 of the Act. In our December 18, 2006, motion for summary judgment, we informed the court that, based on current funding and workload projections, we believed that we could complete a 90-day finding by February 6, 2007, and if we determined in the 90-day finding that the petition provided substantial scientific and commercial information, we could make a 12-month finding by February 6, 2008. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the San Felipe gambusia. Species Information The San Felipe gambusia is a fish that was first discovered in 1997. It was described as *Gambusia clarkhubbsi* by Gary Garrett and Robert Edwards (2003, pp. 783-788) based on morphology. Genetic information has not been published on the San Felipe gambusia. The San Felipe gambusia is a member of the subgenus *Gambusia* and a member of the *nobilis* species group (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 784). At maturity, the San Felipe gambusia's standard length averages 1.07 inches
(in)(27.18 millimeters (mm)) for males and 1.39 in (35.22 mm) for females (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786). The San Felipe gambusia is most similar morphologically to the spotfin gambusia ( *Gambusia krumholzi* ) from northern Mexico, but differs in a number of morphological characteristics. The San Felipe gambusia's ground color is light overall with tan overtones, whereas the spotfin gambusia is silvery or yellow white with blue overtones (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 784). The San Felipe gambusia has a broader lateral stripe with more prominent spotting along its sides. It also has a broader streak in front of its vertebral column on its back. In addition, it has no streak behind its anus. The spotfin gambusia has, in contrast, a distinct, thin streak behind the anus. The back and tail fins are dusky to colorless in the San Felipe gambusia, whereas these fins are blackened near the margins on spotfin gambusia. The anal fin, also dusky to colorless on the San Felipe gambusia, is darkened on female spotfin gambusia (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785). The San Felipe gambusia is known only from San Felipe Creek, Val Verde County, Texas (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 783). San Felipe Creek emanates from the San Felipe Springs segment of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. The creek is a Rio Grande tributary, which flows through the City of Del Rio (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785). Preliminary observations indicate that the San Felipe gambusia's habitat is characterized by edge or quiet water in close association with significant spring flows found in the upper portions of the creek. Garrett and Edwards (2003, p. 787) suggest that low numbers of San Felipe gambusia were long present in San Felipe Creek where they are dependent upon rare, specific portions of spring-associated habitat. The Tex-Mex gambusia ( *Gambusia speciosa* ) is the only other *Gambusia* occurring in San Felipe Creek. Since its discovery, San Felipe gambusia “often have comprised 50 percent of the *Gambusia* in collections of 30 to several hundred individuals” (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 787). Threats Analysis Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4 of the Act, we may list a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment of vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the following five 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. In making this finding, we evaluated whether the threats to the San Felipe gambusia presented in the petition may pose a concern with respect to its survival. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be threatened or endangered. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the San Felipe gambusia 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 San Felipe gambusia's persistence in the wild. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. In the discussion below, we have placed the threats listed in the petition under the most appropriate listing factor. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition claims that semi-arid climatic conditions combined with a local and regional desire for pumping aquifer water are probably the most important threats related to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of San Felipe gambusia's habitat. The San Felipe portion of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer is the sole source of water for the City of Del Rio and Laughlin Airforce Base. The petitioner did not provide a citation to verify this information. Additionally, according to the petitioner, area ranchers and farmers use diverted water from San Felipe Creek, as well as water pumped from the aquifer, to irrigate their crops, although the petitioner presented no references for this statement. In addition to potential problems presented by a strong local reliance on aquifer water, rapidly growing cities elsewhere in Texas are in the market to transport water from Cal Verde County to sustain their water demands. This practice is often referred to as “water ranching” or “water mining” (Texas Center for Policy Studies 2001, p. 1). The petition states that Val Verde County's proximity to San Antonio and San Angelo make it ideal for the profit-generating business of water ranching. Both San Antonio and San Angelo have established plans to transport water from certain rural areas located over the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Readily available information in our files indicates that several private water development projects have been evaluated to mine water into San Antonio from Val Verde, Kinney, and Edwards counties (HDR 2001, p. 1-1). Sustaining spring flows in San Felipe Creek is highly dependent upon maintaining groundwater levels above a certain elevation within the San Felipe portion of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Information from the Texas Center for Policy Studies (2001, p. 2), which was cited by the petitioner, indicates that if several large-scale water ranchers withdraw water from this portion of the aquifer simultaneously, the area could experience aquifer depletion. The petition states that because the San Felipe gambusia occupies rare portions of spring outlets with significant spring flow, reduced spring flow could potentially eliminate much of its habitat (Edwards *et al.* 2004, p. 254). Information provided by the petitioner regarding the semi-arid climatic conditions of the region, the local and regional desire to pump groundwater, and the San Felipe gambusia's dependence upon significant spring flows is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner did not provide information to show that the flow levels at San Felipe Creek in particular have been or are likely to be reduced by groundwater pumping to an extent that may threaten the species. Thus, the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information that aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion is threatening the San Felipe gambusia at this time. The majority of San Felipe Springs, which feeds San Felipe Creek, emanates within a golf course inside the City of Del Rio. The creek has been modified over the years to accommodate urban expansion, including activities such as the building of roads and bridges, public access, irrigation diversion, and bank stabilization (Garrett and Edwards 2003, pp. 785-786). The petition reports that the creek has been repeatedly exposed to pollution. A source cited in the petition (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786) states that prior to 1994, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)documented elevated levels of nitrates, phosphates, and orthophosphates in San Felipe Creek. It is hypothesized that land use practices in the watershed, such as runoff from the municipal golf course, may have contributed to the elevated levels of pollutants (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786). The petition also states that current creek management strategies employed by the San Felipe Country Club and the City of Del Rio have improved creek habitat, resulting in positive effects for the San Felipe gambusia. Information provided by the petitioner regarding urban expansion, subsequent water quality degradation, and recently implemented, creek-friendly management practices is supported by information in our files. Because the petitioner does not provide information that urban expansion and water quality degradation have been or are likely to affect the San Felipe gambusia, and provides information that current creek management practices are having a positive impact on the fish, we have determined that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information that urbanization is threatening the San Felipe gambusia. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition did not contain information suggesting that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia. C. Disease or Predation According to the petition, neither disease nor predation is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition states that Texas laws regarding groundwater ownership and private pumping are inadequate for preventing aquifer depletion. The petition includes this information under listing Factor A, the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, but we find that it falls under listing Factor D, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition states that, in the absence of a groundwater conservation district, the Texas “rule of capture,” established in 1904, gives landowners the right to withdraw unlimited amounts of water from their property for sale or personal use. Groundwater conservation districts ( *e.g.* , the Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District) provide for regulation of the spacing and production of water wells (Texas Center for Policy Studies 2001, p. 1). Information in our files supports this claim and indicates groundwater conservation districts have a narrow ability to restrict the transport of groundwater outside the boundaries of the conservation district (House Research Organization 2006, p. 4). Additionally, there is no groundwater conservation district in Val Verde County (Marbury and Kelly 2005, p. 8). This information was provided by the petitioner, but the petitioner did not supply a reference to support the claim. Information provided by the petitioner regarding the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect aquifer levels is supported by information in our files. However, we believe that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information indicating that inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect aquifer levels are a threat to the San Felipe gambusia. As stated earlier, the petition does not present information demonstrating that aquifer and springflow depletion is a threat to the species. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence According to the petition, there are three natural factors that render the San Felipe gambusia vulnerable to extinction. The first factor is the species' extremely limited distribution. The San Felipe gambusia is found only in San Felipe Creek (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785). Thus, the petitioner suggests that localized disruptions affecting the San Felipe gambusia or its habitat could increase the species' vulnerability to extinction. Secondly, the petition suggests that not only is the San Felipe gambusia limited to San Felipe Creek, but is probably even more restricted to rare, specific portions of the creek and associated spring outlets (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 787). The petitioner contends that if this is true, the creek could appear healthy at the same time this specific habitat is lost. Information provided by the petitioner regarding the San Felipe gambusia's limited distribution and rare habitat requirements is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner did not provide information to show that the limited distribution and rare habitat requirements of the San Felipe gambusia have been or are likely to threaten the species in terms of aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion, as discussed in factor A above. Lastly, the petition states that because the San Felipe gambusia evolved sympatrically with the Tex-Mex gambusia, negative impacts to the San Felipe gambusia's habitat or niche could put this species at a competitive disadvantage. The petitioner also suggest's that either the introduction of nonnative *Gambusia* or an overlap in habitat between the two native, sympatrically occurring *Gambusia,* species could lead to hybridization. Sources cited in the petition document incidents of hybridization among co-occurring *Gambusia* species (Edwards *et al.* 2004, p. 258). We suspect that the new species has long been present is San Felipe Creek but in low numbers and perhaps associated with an as yet unidentified, specific, rare habitat. Information provided by the petitioner regarding the occurrence of co-existing *Gambusia* and the history of co-existing *Gambusia* to compete and hybridize when forced into the same habitat, is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner does not provide information that co-existing *Gambusia* species are threatening the San Felipe gambusia at this time because there is no information indicating that aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion will cause these species to utilize the same habitat, and the petitioner did not provide information about nonnative *Gambusia* occurring in the same habitats as San Felipe gambusia despite the fact that it has likely been long present in the creek. The petition also reports that an exotic species, Armadillo Del Rio ( *Hypostomus sp.* ) or “armored catfish,” has recently become established in San Felipe Creek and has expanded rapidly. The petition did not present references for this statement, although information in our files supports this claim. Readily available information in our files indicates that the armored catfish is a popular aquarium fish that feeds on algae and is known for having a dramatic impact on stream ecosystems. They remove algal cover, destroy aquatic plants, and alter bank topography. The petition stated, but did not provide a reference, that armored catfish are also known to directly compete with native fishes as well as prey upon them by accidental ingestion of their eggs. The petition suggests that the endangered Devils River minnow has become extirpated within San Felipe Creek due to the introduction of this catfish. Information in our files indicates that this information is unreliable and that the Devils River minnow is still found in San Felipe Creek (Lopez-Fernandez and Winemiller 2005, p. 250). We recognize that the armored catfish may modify the ecosystem of San Felipe Creek, although the petitioner does not provide information on the negative impacts caused by the armored catfish within the San Felipe Creek ecosystem, nor does the petitioner describe how such impacts could threaten the survival of the San Felipe gambusia despite the fact that the armored catfish is present and known to be abundant in the creek. The petitioner therefore does not provide scientific or commercial information that the exotic armored catfish is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia at this time. Finding We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually. The petition focuses primarily on three listing factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. The petition and information in our files suggest that the combination of the species' extremely limited distribution, reliance on springflows within semi-arid climatic conditions, and unregulated plans to pump water from the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer may be a concern for the San Felipe gambusia. Because the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information to show that the flow levels at San Felipe Creek in particular have been or are likely to be reduced by groundwater pumping, we find that the information presented in the petition regarding the threat of springflow depletion was not substantial. The petition also presents information about water quality degradation due to land uses associated with urbanization. Because the petition does not provide evidence that land use practices have been or are likely to degrade water quality in San Felipe Creek, we do not believe that the petition presents substantial information that water quality degradation is a threat. In addition, the petition suggests that an introduced armored catfish could have a dramatic impact on the ecosystem of San Felipe Creek based on the effects documented on other aquatic systems. However, the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information that indicates the armored catfish is negatively impacting San Felipe Creek or the San Felipe gambusia. Thus, we believe that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information that the armored catfish is a threat to the species. The petition presents information about possible competition with other native or nonnative *Gambusia.* The petition, however, does not provide scientific or commercial information that competition with other *Gambusia* species is occurring or likely to occur. The petition suggests that the San Felipe gambusia's naturally limited distribution and habitat specificity are a threat. We find, however, that the petition does present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the species' limited range and habitat specificity are natural factors that make the species vulnerable, but we do not believe that this information alone indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted. It appears that the San Felipe gambusia has always been a localized species with small population numbers. We have reviewed and evaluated the petition and assessed the reliability of the information presented by reviewing literature cited in the petition and information in our files or otherwise readily available at the time of the petition review. On the basis of this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the San Felipe gambusia may be warranted. Although we will not commence a status review in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the San Felipe gambusia's population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the San Felipe gambusia across its range. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the species. If you wish to provide information regarding the San Felipe gambusia, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this notice is the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). 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: February 6, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-2292 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 29 Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 7, 2007. 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)720-8958. 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. Farm Service Agency *Title:* On-line Registration for FSA-sponsored Events and Conferences. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0226. *Summary of Collection:* The collect of information is necessary for respondents to register on-line to make payment and reservation to attend Farm Service Agency
(FSA)sponsored events and conferences. The respondents will need to submit the information on-line to pay and to make reservation prior to attending any conferences and events. Respondents that do not have access to the Internet can register by mail or fax. *Need and use of the Information:* FSA will collect the name, organization, organizations address, country, phone number, State, payment options and special accommodations from respondents. FSA will use the information to get payment, confirm and make hotel and other necessary arrangement for the respondents. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Farms: Business or other for-profit; Federal government, Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 900. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 225. Farm Service Agency *Title:* Minority Farm Register. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0231. *Summary of Collection:* This information collection is necessary to create a client list for the Farm Service Agency
(FSA)and the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)program outreach. The collected information is a tool to promote equal access to USDA Farm programs and services for minority farmers and ranchers with agricultural interests. The Register will provide a name and address file of those interested in outreach efforts. The authority for the collection of this information can be found at 7 U.S.C. 2279. *Need and use of the Information:* FSA will collect the name, address, phone number, farm location, race, ethnicity and gender from the Minority Farm Register permission form, AD-2035. FSA manage the register and the Office of Outreach releases names, addresses and phone numbers of individuals to approved outreach organizations requesting lists of individuals with particular racial and ethnic characteristics with their authorizations. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 5,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (once). *Total Burden Hours:* 4,667. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2393 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2007-0004] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on General Principles AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is sponsoring a public meeting on March 7, 2007. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the Twenty-fourth Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles
(CCGP)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Paris, France, April 2-6, 2007. The Under Secretary for Food Safety recognizes the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 24th Session of CCGP and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 1-4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 107-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 24th Session of CCGP will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: * http:// www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp * . The U.S. Delegate to the 24th Session of CCGP, F. Edward Scarbrough, Ph.D., U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address *uscodex@fsis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 24TH SESSION OF THE CCGP CONTACT: F. Edward Scarbrough, Ph.D., U.S. Manager for Codex, Tel:
(202)720-2057, Fax:
(202)720-3157; E-mail: *ed.scarbrough@fsis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC MEETING CONTACT: Jasmine Matthews, Program Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Tel:
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157, E-mail: *jasmine.matthews@fsis.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The Codex Committee on General Principles
(CCGP)deals with rules and procedures referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission including the establishment of principles which define the purpose and scope of the Codex Alimentarius and the nature of Codex standards. The development of mechanisms to address any economic impact statements is also the responsibility of the CCGP. The Committee is hosted by the Government of France. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 24th Session of the CCGP will be discussed during the public meeting: • Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety. • Proposed Draft Revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods. • Respective roles of the Regional Coordinators and the Members of the Executive Committee elected on a geographic basis. ○ Designation of the Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee by the Regional Coordinator. ○ Respective roles of the Coordinator and the Member elected on a geographical basis in the Executive Committee. • Review of the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts. ○ Proposed amendments to the Procedures. ○ Guide to the Procedure for the Revision and Amendment of Codex Standards; and Arrangements for the Amendment of Codex Standards Elaborated by Codex Committees which have adjourned *sine die.* • Review of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. • Proposed new definitions of risk analysis terms related to food safety. • Consideration of the Structure and Presentation of the Procedural Manual. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see For Further Information About the 24th Session of the CCGP Contact ). Public Meeting At the March 7, 2007 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 24th Session of the CCGP, F. Edward Scarbrough (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 24th Session of the CCGP. 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/2007_Notices_Index/* . FSIS also will 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 February 8, 2007. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E7-2436 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2007-0005] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)are sponsoring a public meeting on February 22, 2007. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the Twenty-Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Budapest, Hungary March 5-9, 2007. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and The Food and Drug Administration recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 28th Session of CCMAS and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2007 from 10:30 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 1A002, Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Documents related to the 28th Session of CCMAS will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Delegate to the 28th Session of CCMAS, Dr. Gregory Diachenko of FDA invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address *Gregory.Diachenko@fda.hhs.gov.* For Further Information About the 28th Session of the CCMAS Contact: Dr. Gregory Diachenko, Room HFS-245, Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1898, Fax:
(301)436-2364, e-mail: *Gregory.Diachenko@fda.hhs.gov.* For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact: Mr. Syed Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157 *syed.ali@fsis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling was established to elaborate codes, standards and related texts to define the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Committee is hosted by Hungary. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 28th Session of CCMAS will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters Referred to the Committee by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees. • Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis. • Draft Guidelines for Settling Disputes over Analytical
(Test)Results. • Proposed Draft Guidelines on Analytical Terminology for Codex Use. • Endorsement of Methods of Analysis Provisions in Codex Standards. • Conversion of Methods for Trace Elements into Criteria. • Criteria for the Methods for the Detection and Identification of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. • Revision of the Principles for the Establishment of Codex Sampling Procedures. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see For Further Information About the 28th Session of the CCMAS Contact ). Public Meeting At the February 22, 2007 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 28th Session of CCMAS, Dr. Gregory Diachenko (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 28th Session of CCMAS. 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/2007_Notices_Index/.* FSIS also will 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 February 8, 2007. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E7-2437 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2007-0002] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on March 8, 2007. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the First Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods
(CCCF)of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Beijing, China, on April 16-20, 2007. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 1st Session of CCCF and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 8, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the auditorium (Room 1A003), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Highway, College Park MD 20740. Documents related to the 1st Session of CCCF will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp* . The U.S. Delegate to the CCCF, Dr. Nega Beru, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address: *nega.beru@fda.hhs.gov.* *Registration:* You may also register electronically to the same e-mail address above. Early registration is encouraged because it will expedite entry into the building and its parking area. If you require parking, please include the vehicle make and tag number, if known, when you register. Because the meeting will be held in a Federal building, you should also bring a photo identification
(ID)and plan for adequate time to pass through security screening systems. For Further Information About The 1st Session Of The CCCF Contact: Nega Beru, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1731, e-mail: *nega.beru@fda.hhs.gov.* For Further Information About The Public Meeting Contact: Ellen Matten, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service , Room 4861, South building, 1400 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20250. Phone
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade. The Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods was established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2006 when the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants was split. It was established to set or endorse permitted maximum levels or guideline levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; to prepare priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; to consider methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; to consider and elaborate standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and to consider other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed. The Committee is hosted by the Netherlands. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 1st Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters Referred to the Committee from other Codex bodies. • Matters of Interest arising from FAO/WHO. • Endorsement/Revision of Maximum Levels for Contaminants in Codex Standards. • Consideration of the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods. • Proposed Draft Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Almonds, Hazelnuts and Pistachios “for further processing” and “ready-to-eat”. • Proposed draft Sampling Plan for Aflatoxin contamination in Almonds, Brazil nuts, Hazelnuts and Pistachios. • Discussion paper on Maximum Levels in “ready-to-eat” almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios. • Discussion paper on Aflatoxin contamination in Brazil nuts. • Discussion paper on Deoxynivalenol (DON). • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Control of Ochratoxin A Contamination in Wine. • Discussion paper on Ochratoxin A in Coffee. • Discussion paper on Ochratoxin A in Cocoa. • Discussion paper on Aflatoxins in dried figs. • Proposed draft Maximum Levels for Tin in Canned Foods (other than beverages) and in Canned Beverages. • Proposed draft Maximum Level for 3-MCPD in Liquid Condiments containing acid-HVP (excluding naturally fermented soya sauce). • Proposed draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Chloropropanols during the Production of acid-Hydrolysed Vegetable Proteins
(HVPs)and Products that contain acid-HVPs. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Food. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Contamination of foods with PAH from Smoking and Direct Drying. • Priority List of Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see For Further Information About The 1st Session Of The Cccf Contact ). Public Meeting At the March 8, 2007 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for CCCF, Dr. Nega Beru (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 1st Session of CCCF. 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/2007_Notices_Index/.* FSIS also will 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 February 8, 2007. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E7-2438 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revision of Land Management Plan for the Uwharrie National Forest AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of commencement of the 90-day comment period for the Uwharrie National Forest proposed Land Management Plan. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing a revision to the Land Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the Proposed Plan) for the Uwharrie National Forest (UNF). This notice provides: 1. Information on how to view and/or obtain copies of the Proposed Plan and the Comprehensive Evaluation Report. 2. Information on how the public can comment on the Proposed Plan, when those comments are due and, how comments can be submitted; 3. Who to contact for more information. DATES: Commencement of the 90-day comment period on the Proposed Plan formally begins on February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Uwharrie Plan Revision, National Forests in North Carolina, 160-A Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801. Electronic mail should include “Uwharrie Proposed Plan” in the subject line and be sent to: *comments-southern-north-carolina@fs.fed.us.* More information on the UNF and Proposed Plan revision process is available at: *http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/uwharrie_plan/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Berner, National Forests in North Carolina, Planning Team Leader,
(828)257-4862. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Uwharrie National Forest is managed as part of the National Forests in North Carolina. The original Land Management Plan
(LMP)for the UNF was completed in 1986. A Notice of Initiation to revise the UNF's LMP was published in the **Federal Register** on November 18, 2005. Numerous public meetings and collaborative efforts have occurred to develop a Proposed Plan for the UNF. The results of these efforts will now be available for a formal 90-day public comment period. Documents Available for Review The following documents are available for review. They are available either online at: “ *http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/uwharrie_ plan/,* ” or hardcopies are available by sending a request to “ *comments-southern-north-carolina@fs.fed.us* ” or by contacting the address shown above. 1. Uwharrie National Forest Proposed Land Management Plan. 2. Comprehensive Evaluation Report, which includes the following separate documents: • Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability, • Aquatic Ecosystem Sustainability, • Social Economic Sustainability and Social/Economic Overview. 3. Timber Resource Analysis. Comment Requested The Forest Service is seeking comments from individuals, organizations, and Federal, State, and local governments and agencies on the Uwharrie National Forest Proposed Land Management Plan. Comments on the Proposed Plan should be submitted within 90-days beginning February 15, 2007. Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina, is the Responsible Official (36 CFR 219.2(b)(1)). (Authority: 36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(i), 70 FR 1023, January 5, 2005) Marisue Hillard, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina. [FR Doc. 07-618 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 11
7 references not yet in our index
  • 38 CFR 17
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424
  • Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 1729
C.F.R.§ 17.101
C.F.R.§ 17.102
U.S.C.§ 1532
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 501
U.S.C.§ 1531
U.S.C.§ 2279
Cite38 CFR 17
Cite44 USC 3501-3521
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 18 · 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.