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 · 2007-02-21 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

31,868 words·~145 min read·/register/2007/02/21/07-787

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30536; Amdt. No. 3206] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective February 21, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1.
FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address:
P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on February 9, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 15 March 2007 Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 8, Orig Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, VOR RWY 8, Amdt 8 Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, GPS RWY 8, Orig, CANCELLED Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 26, Orig Bay Minette, AL, Bay Minette Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 9, Amdt 2 Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 27, Amdt 1 Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Williston, FL, Williston Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Williston, FL, Williston Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Williston, FL, Williston Muni, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 1 Williston, FL, Williston Muni, GPS RWY 23, Orig-A, CANCELLED Williston, FL, Williston Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 2 Hammond, LA, Hammond Northshore Regional, VOR RWY 31, Amdt 4 Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 8 Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Regional-Richard A. Henson Field, LOC RWY 9, Orig Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Orig Potosi, MO, Washington County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 2, Orig Potosi, MO, Washington County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 20, Orig Potosi, MO, Washington County, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Haverhill, NH, Dean Memorial, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 19, Orig Haverhill, NH, Dean Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Nashua, NH, Boire Fld, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 32, Orig Nashua, NH, Boire Fld, GPS RWY 32, Orig, CANCELLED Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City International, COPTER ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 13, Amdt 1 Atlantic City, NJ, Atlantic City International, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Berlin, NJ, Camden County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Berlin, NJ, Camden County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Berlin, NJ, Camden County, GPS RWY 5, Orig-A, CANCELLED Berlin, NJ, Camden County, GPS RWY 23, Orig, CANCELLED Oklahoma City, OK, Will Roger World, RNAV
(RNP)Y RWY 17L, Amdt 1 Oklahoma City, OK, Will Roger World, RNAV
(GPS)Z RWY 17L, Amdt 1 Oklahoma City, OK, Will Roger World, RNAV
(RNP)Z RWY 35R, Orig-A Oklahoma City, OK, Will Roger World, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 27L, Amdt 1A Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 5, Amdt 1 Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, GPS RWY 23, Orig-B, CANCELLED Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, VOR RWY 5, Amdt 10 Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Athens, TN, McMinn County, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 20, Orig Athens, TN, McMinn County, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 6 Dickson, TN, Dickson Muni, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Arlington, TX, Arlington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 2 Dallas, TX, Addison, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 4 Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 6 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas/Fort Worth International, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 4 Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Meacham Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 6 Oak Harbor, WA, Wes Lupien, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 7, Amdt 1 Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L; ILS RWY 16L (CAT II); ILS RWY 16L (CAT III), Amdt 3A Big Piney, WY, Miley Mem Field, GPS RWY 31, Orig-B Pinedale, WY, Ralph Wenz Field, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 11, Orig-A Pinedale, WY, Ralph Wenz Field, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 29, Orig-A Pinedale, WY, Ralph Wenz Field, NDB RWY 29, Amdt 1A Effective 12 April 2007 Victorville, CA, Southern California Logistics, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 2 Effective 10 May 2007 Akhiok, AK, Akhiok, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Akhiok, AK, Akhiok, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig [FR Doc. E7-2691 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30537; Amdt. No. 3207] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective February 21, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport is located; or 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), which is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on February 9, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: Part 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35, and 97.37 [Amended] By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, LDA w/GS, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, MLS, TLS, GLS, WAAS PA, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, § 97.37 Takeoff Minima and Obstacle Departure Procedures. Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 10/31/06 PS Koror Babelthaup 6/4968 RNAV
(GPS)RWY 27, ORIG. 10/31/06 PS Koror Babelthaup 6/4969 RNAV
(GPS)RWY 9, ORIG. 10/31/06 PS Koror Babelthaup 6/4984 NDB RWY 9, ORIG. 02/01/07 CA Bishop Eastern Sierra Rgnl 7/1787 VOR/DME OR GPS-B, AMDT 4. 02/01/07 CO Denver Jeffco 7/1922 GPS RWY 29R, ORIG. 02/01/07 CO Denver Jeffco 7/1923 ILS RWY 29R, AMDT 13A. 02/01/07 CO Denver Jeffco 7/1924 VOR/DME RWY 29L/R, ORIG-A. 02/01/07 CO Denver Jeffco 7/1926 GPS RWY 29L, ORIG. 02/02/07 NC Charlotte Douglas Intl 7/2313 ILS OR LOC RWY 5, AMDT 37. 02/02/07 NC Statesville Statesville 7/2375 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 28, ORIG. 02/02/07 TN Fayetteville Fayetteville Muni 7/2415 VOR/DME RWY 2, ORIG-C. 02/02/07 TN Fayetteville Fayetteville Muni 7/2416 NDB RWY 20, AMDT 4. 02/06/07 MS Tupelo Tupelo Regional 7/2571 NDB RWY 36, AMDT 4. 02/06/07 MS Tupelo Tupelo Regional 7/2573 VOR/DME RWY 18, ORIG. 02/06/07 VA Winchester Winchester Regional 7/2599 VOR/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 4. 02/06/07 MN Mankato Mankato Regional 7/2636 COPTER ILS RWY 33, ORIG-A. 02/06/07 WY Big Piney Miley Memorial 7/2674 VOR RWY 31, AMDT 3C. [FR Doc. E7-2690 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 16 and 1240 [Docket No. 2003N-0400] RIN 0910-ZA21 Control of Communicable Diseases; Restrictions on African Rodents, Prairie Dogs, and Certain Other Animals AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Interim final rule; supplement and partial reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is reopening the comment period for the interim final rule on the capture, transport, sale, barter, exchange, distribution, and release of African rodents, prairie dogs, and certain other animals, which was published in the **Federal Register** of November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62353). FDA is taking this action because it is adding new information, primarily in the form of peer-reviewed scientific literature, to the administrative record. FDA is reopening the comment period for 30 days for the sole purpose of inviting public comments on the information being added to the administrative record. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2003N-0400 and/or RIN number 0910-ZA21, by any of the following methods: Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. Written Submissions Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under Electronic Submissions . *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip L. Chao, Office of Policy and Planning (HF-23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-0587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In the **Federal Register** of November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62353), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)and FDA issued an interim final rule to establish new restrictions and modify existing restrictions on the import, capture, transport, sale, barter, exchange, distribution, and release of African rodents, prairie dogs, and certain other animals in order to prevent the spread of monkeypox, a communicable disease, in the United States. The CDC regulation is codified at 42 CFR 71.56, and FDA's regulation is codified at 21 CFR 1240.63. Since the publication of the interim final rule in the **Federal Register** , additional scientific information has appeared regarding the 2003 monkeypox outbreak. In general, the scientific information adds to our knowledge about the 2003 monkeypox outbreak in the United States, including information about the virus and how the disease affected or affects humans and animals. FDA is adding the following documents to the administrative record for the interim final rule: 1. Anderson, M.G., et al., “A Case of Severe Monkeypox Virus Disease in an American Child: Emerging Infections and Changing Professional Values,” *Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal* , 2003; 22:1093-1096. 2. Bernard, S.M. and Anderson, S.A., “Qualitative Assessment of Risk for Monkeypox Associated with Domestic Trade in Certain Animal Species, United States” *Emerging Infectious Diseases* , 2006; 12: 1827-1833. 3. Di Giulio, D.B. and Eckburg, P.B., “Human Monkeypox: An Emerging Zoonosis,” *Lancet Infectious Diseases* , 2004; 4:15-25. 4. Fleischauer, A.T., et al., “Evaluation of Human-to-Human Transmission of Monkeypox from Infected Patients to Health Care Workers,” *Clinical Infectious Diseases* , 2005; 40:689-694. 5. Guarner, J., et al., “Monkeypox Transmission and Pathogenesis in Prairie Dogs,” *Emerging Infectious Diseases* , 2004; 10:426-431. 6. Hammarlund, E., et al., “Multiple Diagnostic Techniques Identify Previously Vaccinated Individuals With Protective Immunity Against Monkeypox,” *Nature Medicine* , 2005; 11:1005-1011. 7. Huhn, G.D., et al., “Clinical Characteristics of Human Monkeypox, and Risk Factors for Severe Disease,” *Clinical Infectious Diseases* , 2005; 41:1742-1751. 8. Huhn, G.D., et al., “Monkeypox in the Western Hemisphere,” *New England Journal of Medicine* , 2004; 350:1790-1791. 9. Jamieson, D.J., et al., “Emerging Infections and Pregnancy: West Nile Virus, Monkeypox, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, and Bioterrorism,” *Clinics in Perinatology* , 2005; 32:765-776. 10. Kile, J.C., et al., “Transmission of Monkeypox Among Persons Exposed to Infected Prairie Dogs in Indiana in 2003,” *Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine* , 2005; 159:1022-1025. 11. Likos, A.M., et al., “A Tale of Two Clades: Monkeypox Viruses,” *Journal of General Virology* , 2005; 86:2661-2672. 12. Nalca, A., et al., “Reemergence of Monkeypox: Prevalence, Diagnostics, and Countermeasures,” *Clinical Infectious Diseases* , 2005; 41:1765-1771. 13. Reed, K.D., et al., “The Detection of Monkeypox in Humans in the Western Hemisphere,” *New England Journal of Medicine* , 2004; 350:342-350. 14. Reynolds, Gretchen, “Why Were Doctors Afraid to Treat Rebecca McLester?” New York Times, April 18, 2004. 15. Reynolds, M.G., et al., “Clinical Manifestations of Human Monkeypox Influenced by Route of Infection,” *Journal of Infectious Diseases* , 2006; 773-780. 16. Sejvar, J.J., et al., “Human Monkeypox Infection: A Family Cluster in the Midwestern United States,” *Journal of Infectious Diseases* , 2004; 190:1833-1840. 17. Xiao, S., et al., “Experimental Infection of Prairie Dogs with Monkeypox Virus,” *Emerging Infectious Diseases* , 2005; 11:539-545. II. Comments Through this document, FDA is announcing the addition of the previous materials to the administrative docket and inviting comment limited to these publications. FDA believes that a 30-day comment period is sufficient in this case, as the agency is specifically limiting its reopening of the comment period to comments on how the agency should consider the information being added to the administrative docket in relation to FDA's interim final rule. Comments are invited, and will be considered, only to the extent they are focused on the specific information being added to the record of FDA's interim final rule. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the documents listed above. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: February 9, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-2857 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0685, FRL-8275-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for New York's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program which includes the adoption of a statewide On-Board Diagnostic
(OBD)program. New York has made revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” and Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” to comply with EPA regulations and to improve performance of its I/M program. The intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP and to approve a control strategy that will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will be effective March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)which replaces the Regional Materials in EDOCKET
(RME)docket system. The new FDMS is located at *www.regulations.gov* and the docket ID for this action is EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0685. All documents in the docket are listed in the FDMS index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,
(212)637-3381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs? B. What Did New York Include in This Latest Submittal? C. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? II. What Comments Did EPA Receive in Response to Its Proposal? III. Summary of Conclusions IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs? The Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires certain states to implement an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles which exhibit excessive emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet federal health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. Section 184 of the CAA also created an “Ozone Transport Region”
(OTR)which geographically includes the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (including all of New York State) and the District of Columbia Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. Depending on the severity of the nonattainment designation(s) and/or geographic location within the OTR, EPA's regulation under 40 CFR 51.350 outlines the appropriate motor vehicle I/M requirements. As a result of the 1-hr ozone nonattainment designations, New York State's 62 counties were divided into two separate I/M areas. The “downstate” 9-county New York Metropolitan Area (NYMA), which includes New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, and Queens Counties), Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties), and Westchester and Rockland Counties, has been classified as a high enhanced I/M area. On January 1, 1998, New York began implementing a high enhanced I/M program (New York refers to this program as its NYTEST program) in the NYMA. By May 1999, this enhanced I/M program was fully functional for the entire NYMA. The remaining 53 “Upstate” counties of New York State were classified as a low enhanced I/M area. Since 1998, the Upstate I/M area featured annual anti-tampering visual inspections including a gas cap presence check. Since all of New York State is included within the OTR, additional I/M requirements are mandated in the more populated counties of Upstate New York pursuant to 40 CFR 51.350(a). Section 51.350(a)(1) provides that, “States or areas within an ozone transport region shall implement enhanced I/M programs in any metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or portion of an MSA, within the state or area with a 1990 population of 100,000 or more as defined by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regardless of the area's attainment classification.” Further, section 51.350(b)(1) provides that, “[i]n an ozone transport region, the program shall entirely cover all counties within subject MSAs or subject portions of MSAs, as defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per square mile based on the 1990 Census can be excluded except that at least 50 percent of the MSA population must be included in the program* * *.” In effect, 16 of the 53 counties located in Upstate New York are required to have low enhanced I/M. The 16 counties are Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Putnam, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Saratoga, Warren and Washington. On April 5, 2001, EPA published in the **Federal Register** “Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check” (66 FR 18156). The revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board Diagnostics
(OBD)system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain management system and is designed to detect engine and transmission problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits. OBD is the subject of this proposed rulemaking action. The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The first three testing categories—misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive components—are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst) are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either “ready” (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), “not ready” (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or “not applicable” (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component monitor in question). The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP)standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light
(MIL)is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected, and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible thus reducing the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle. EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which include the NYMA and certain counties in Upstate New York. This rule established a deadline of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996 and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD check. EPA's revised I/M rule also provided several options to states to delay implementation of OBD testing, under certain circumstances. An extension of the deadline for states to begin conducting mandatory OBD checks is permissible provided the state making the request can show just cause to EPA for a delay and that the revised implementation date represents “the best the state can reasonably do” (66 FR 18159). EPA's final rule identifies factors that may serve as a possible justification for states considering making a request to the EPA to delay implementation of OBD I/M program checks beyond the January 2002 deadline. Potential factors justifying such a delay include contractual impediments, hardware or software deficiencies, data management software deficiencies, the need for additional training for the testing and repair industries, and the need for public education or outreach. On May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22922), EPA fully approved New York's enhanced I/M program as it applies to NYMA and included the state's performance standard modeling as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA. However, the OBD component of that program was not being implemented at that time and therefore was not approved by EPA as satisfying a fully operational OBD program. Additional information on EPA's final approval of New York's enhanced I/M program can be found in EPA's May 7, 2001 final approval notice. B. What Did New York Include in This Latest Submittal? On April 4, 2002, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requested a formal extension of the OBD I/M test deadline, per EPA's I/M requirement rule. New York's request lists contractual impediments, hardware and software deficiencies and data management deficiencies as the factors for its request for an extension of the OBD testing deadline. Based upon the reasons listed by New York, EPA believed that the State's delayed implementation was justified. On February 27, 2006, NYSDEC submitted to EPA a revision to its SIP which incorporates OBD system requirements in the NYMA and the 53 counties located in Upstate New York. New York's SIP revision includes revisions to the NYSDEC regulation found at Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation found at Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” and a performance standard modeling demonstration. On October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60098), EPA proposed to approve New York's revised enhanced I/M program which includes the adoption of a statewide OBD program. For a detailed discussion on the content and requirements of the revisions to New York's regulations, the reader is referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking action. C. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? The EPA is approving a revision to the New York SIP pertaining to New York's enhanced I/M program which incorporates OBD testing requirements and procedures in the NYMA and the 53 counties located in Upstate New York (New York refers to this program as the New York Vehicle Inspection Program (NYVIP)). EPA is also repealing Title 6 of the NYCRR, Subpart 217-2, “Motor Vehicle NY 91 Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements” and Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, Section 26, which previously included exhaust emission standards and inspection/repair procedures that are no longer being relied upon by or necessary for New York State to implement as part of its enhanced I/M program. II. What Comments Did EPA Receive in Response to Its Proposal? In response to EPA's October 12, 2006 proposed rulemaking action, EPA received no comments. III. Summary of Conclusions EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of EPA's technical requirements for an approvable OBD program. EPA is approving the revisions to the NYSDEC regulation Title 6 of the NYCRR, Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” specifically, Subpart 217-1, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements” and Subpart 217-4, “Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits,” effective on October 30, 2002, and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles regulation Title 15 NYCRR Part 79 “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” specifically, Sections 79.1-79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, and 79.25, effective on May 4, 2005. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary emission reductions are met. EPA is also approving New York's performance standard modeling demonstration, which reflects the State's I/M program as it is currently implemented in the 53 counties located in Upstate New York (NYVIP), as meeting the required EPA alternate low enhanced I/M performance standards. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 23, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: January 23, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart HH—New York 2. Section 52.1670 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(111) to read as follows: § 52.1670 Identification of plans.
(c)* * *
(111)Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted on February 27, 2006, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which consist of administrative changes to its motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program which includes the adoption of a statewide On-Board Diagnostic
(OBD)program.
(i)Incorporation by reference:
(A)Regulation Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” specifically, Subpart 217-1, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements” and Subpart 217-4, “Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits,” effective on October 30, 2002, and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles regulation Title 15 NYCRR Part 79 “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” specifically, Sections 79.1-79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, and 79.25, effective on May 4, 2005. 3. In 52.1679, the table is amended by revising the entries under Title 6 for Part 217 and Title 15 for Part 79 to read as follows: § 52.1679 EPA-approved New York State regulations. New York State regulation State effective date Latest EPA approval date Comments Title 6: * * * * * * * Part 217, Motor Vehicle Emissions: Subpart 217-1, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements 10/30/02 2/21/07 [Insert FR page citation] Subpart 217-4, Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits 10/30/02 2/21/07 [Insert FR page citation] * * * * * * * Title 15: Part 79, “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations” Sections 79.1-79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25 5/4/05 2/21/07 [Insert FR page citation] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-2801 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803; FRL-8278-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP)and Operating Permits Program. The revisions clarify the rule and streamline processes without negatively impacting air quality. The approved revisions will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 23, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 23, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov index.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is the part 70 operating permits program? What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and a Part 70 revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is the part 70 operating permits program? The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing this program, the states are to require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined. Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM <sup>10</sup> ; those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP)(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. Revision to the state and local agencies operating permits program are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval. What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled “Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.” What is being addressed in this document? On January 3, 2006, Missouri requested that EPA approve a revision to the SIP and Operating Permits Program to include revisions to the Operating Permits rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065. The rule revisions streamline the basic and intermediate operating permits, which will minimize workload for both industry and state air program staff while maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rule revisions include the following: • General reformatting of the rule, • Added the definition of “Air Pollutant” and added a statement that definitions specified in this rule may be found in the Definitions and Common Reference Table Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.020, • Added new Section (3), which describes the process for issuance of single, multiple or general permits, • Revised Section (4), which relates to the Basic State Operating Permits, and we are not acting on this section pursuant to the December 20, 2006, letter from MDNR. • Revised Section (5), which relates to the Intermediate State Operating Permits; these revisions include deleting references to Section (4), revising procedures for permit notifications, including rule language for standard permit content, clarifying the relationship between single, multiple and general permits, and outlines permit procedures for notifying the Administrator of state intermediate operating permits. These changes to the intermediate program do not affect the stringency of the SIP-approved program but merely make it more consistent with the state's Title V program. • Amended subsection (6)(B), Part 70 Operating Permit Applications, to provide for a specific date by which an installation must file a complete application and provide for a specific date when an installation becomes subject to Part 70 operating permits. It should be noted that this is the only change in the rule revisions which specifically relates to Missouri's Title V operating permit program. It does not change the applicability of the approved program but merely makes it more explicit. Further information on specific changes made to this rule is available in the Technical Support Documentation developed for this action. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and a Part 70 revision been met? The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102 and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA. Finally, the submittal met the substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70. What action is EPA taking? We are approving the revisions to the Missouri Operating Permits rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065, into the SIP and Operating Permit Program. Per Missouri's request, we are not approving revisions to Section
(4)into the SIP or Part 70 as this section relates to the state's Basic Operating Permit Program. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules, which are noncontroversial and make regulatory revisions required by state statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP and Title V submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 23, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 70 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 9, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising the entry for “10-6.065” to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10-6.065 Operating Permits 09/30/05 02/21/07 [ *insert FR page number where the document begins* ] Section
(4)Basic State Operating Permits, has not been approved as part of the SIP. * * * * * * * PART 70—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Appendix A—[Amended] 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph
(t)under Missouri to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs Missouri
(t)The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, “Operating Permits” on January 3, 2006. We are approving this rule except for Section
(4)which relates to the State Basic Operating Permits. This approval is effective April 23, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-2808 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 2930 RIN 1004-AD68 [WO-250-1220-PA-24 1A] Permits for Recreation on Public Lands AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule updates the regulations of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)that explain how to obtain recreation permits for commercial recreational operations, competitive events and activities, organized group activities and events, and individual recreational use of special areas. The final rule is needed to remove from the regulations inconsistencies with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), which authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees at Federal recreation lands and waters for the next 10 years. DATES: Effective date: March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit inquiries or suggestions to Director (250), Bureau of Land Management, Room 301-LS, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Bobo at
(202)452-0333 as to the substance of the final rule, or Ted Hudson at
(202)452-5042 as to procedural matters. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may contact either individual by calling the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at
(800)877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion of Public Comments III. Discussion of Final Rule IV. Procedural Matters I. Background The REA was passed as part of the 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and signed into law on December 8, 2004. The Act provides authority for 10 years for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees for use of certain Federal recreation lands and waters. Section 13 of REA repealed certain admission and use fee authorities, including Section 4(a) through
(i)of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a *et seq.* ), and Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a). The latter provision authorized the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which the BLM has used to fund many of its recreation sites. Because these authorities have been repealed, we need to amend the BLM's recreation permit regulations to remove references to them. Under REA, the BLM will— • Reinvest a majority of fees back to the site of collection to enhance visitor services and reduce the backlog of maintenance needs for recreation facilities (including trail maintenance, toilet facilities, boat ramps, hunting blinds, interpretive signs and programs); • Participate in an interagency fee program that reduces the number of national passes from four to one, allowing visitors access to all Federal recreation lands and sites; • Provide more opportunities for public involvement in the BLM's determination of recreation fee sites and fees; and • Provide for cooperation with gateway communities through fee management agreements for visitor and recreation services, emergency medical services, and law enforcement services. The BLM does not and will not charge a fee for many recreation activities and sites on public lands. The REA includes additional provisions that build on the BLM's past experiences in the recreation fee program and improve the fee program by clarifying the circumstances in which fees may be charged. Under the Act, the BLM will not charge standard or expanded amenity recreation fees for— • General access to BLM areas; • Horseback riding, walking through, driving through, or boating through public lands where no facilities or services are used; • Access to overlooks or scenic pullouts; • Undesignated parking areas where no facilities are provided; or • Picnicking along roads or trails. In addition, individuals under 16 will not be charged an entrance or standard amenity fee. In compliance with REA, the BLM is utilizing its existing Resource Advisory Committees
(RACs)and certain new Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RRACs) to provide the public with additional opportunities to provide input on the establishment of a specific recreation fee site or other agency fee proposals. The BLM also will provide other opportunities for notice and public participation before establishing a new fee, and will keep the public informed on how it is using fee revenues to improve visitor facilities and services. The BLM published a proposed rule implementing REA on November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70570), allowing public comments until January 23, 2006. On January 18, 2006, we published a correction in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 2899), because we found one provision in the proposed rule misleading and subject to an interpretation inconsistent with REA. The REA, at Section 12(d), imposed a $100 fine for failure to pay a permit fee. As published, the proposed rule could be interpreted to provide that this fine also applied to a failure to obtain a permit, which was not the intent of the proposed rule or REA. (Under 18 U.S.C. 3571, the maximum fine for failure to obtain a permit is $100,000 for an individual and $200,000 for an organization. Section 303 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) also provides for a penalty of up to 12 months in prison for such a violation (43 U.S.C. 1733.)) The correction notice extended the comment period so that the public had a full 60 days to comment on the corrected proposed rule, ending March 20, 2006. II. Discussion of Public Comments The BLM received 6 comments on the proposed rule, 5 from individuals and one from a trade association. One comment addressed the provision for civil penalties in section 2932.57(b)(3): “You may also be subject to civil action for unauthorized use of the public lands or related waters and their resources * * * ” It stated that the reference should be to “navigable water” only, stating that applying the penalty to use of any other water would be illegal. The BLM has jurisdiction over the entire shoreline of a lake or reservoir, and controls use and charges fees even if the bureau does not actually “own” the water; navigability is not an issue. There is also case law ( *United States* v. *Lindsey* , 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. 1979)) that cites the property clause of the Constitution in affirming the government's right to require permits (and by extension, fees) for rivers in order to protect the public interest in protecting and managing the lands and resources on the river bank. One comment suggested that the BLM impose a minimum fine of $500.00 for violations of law on public lands. The comment also asked that the offenses that it characterized as “anonymous other actions” be subject to higher fines and that they be specifically listed in the **Federal Register** . Sec. 12(d) of REA limits penalties for failure to pay fees. “SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF RECEIPTS. * * *
(d)Limitation on Penalties.— The failure to pay a recreation fee established under this Act shall be punishable as a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, except that in the case of a first offense of nonpayment, the fine imposed may not exceed $100, notwithstanding section 3571(e) of title 18, United States Code.” One comment challenged economic data that it said the BLM used to justify the proposed rule. We will discuss this issue in Section IV of the preamble, on Procedural Matters. The same comment addressed the provision in the original proposed rule that set the fine for failure of organized groups or commercial activities to have a permit at $100 for the first offense. This was the issue that prompted the January 23, 2006, correction notice and extension of the public comment period. The comment pre-dated the correction notice, and there is no need to discuss the issue further in this final rule. One comment urged that permits for recreation on the public lands should be free of charge to United States citizens and have terms of at least 12 months. The comment stated that this benefit should be funded by charging fees for harvesting all available renewable natural resources and mining minerals on a rotating 10 percent of the public lands each 10 years, leaving the remaining 90 percent to recover for 10 to 90 years. Meanwhile, according to the comment, recreational users would benefit from road construction for resource development that would improve access to remote areas. The comment also advocated reducing costs by eliminating half of the management personnel, and by not paying the moving costs of transferring personnel from location to location, which would tend to keep relevant experience and expertise on site. The comment includes suggestions that are beyond the scope of this rule, not authorized by law, or contrary to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)guidance on recovering costs from those who benefit from public lands and resources. (Cost recovery policies are explained in OMB Circular No. A-25 (Revised), entitled “User Charges.”) The comment also does not recognize that many BLM lands are uniquely valuable for specific resources or uses, notwithstanding the multiple uses outlined in FLPMA and other authorities. The rigid use-rotation plan suggested in the comment would not be appropriate for such lands, and the plan does not take into account varying reclamation and recovery times from different uses of different kinds of public lands. The comment is not adopted in the final rule. One comment asked what regulation changes were proposed or will be made with regard to pedestrian or bicycle access and to camping. The comment raises questions that are beyond the scope of the rule. One comment supported the idea of encouraging recreation on the public lands as a way of re-establishing human links to the natural world and showing that humans are part of that world. The rule is required by law and OMB guidance on recovering costs. Nothing in the rule is intended to discourage recreational use of the public lands. The fees imposed by the rule are the minimum necessary to meet cost recovery requirements, and other burdens imposed on the recreational public are the minimum necessary to allow balanced management of the public lands. III. Discussion of Final Rule The final rule makes changes in the existing regulations on permits for recreation on public lands in order to bring them into conformance with the law, including REA. This section of the preamble describes the changes made in each section of the regulations. Section 2931.3 What are the authorities for these regulations? The final rule amends this section to remove references to the repealed authority, portions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-6a, and add reference to REA. It explains that REA authorizes the BLM to collect fees for recreational use of certain kinds of areas, and to issue special recreation permits for group activities, such as commercial outings, and recreation events, such as races or traditional assemblies. The rule also clarifies the authority contained in Section 303 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1733. It also restates the functions of 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq.* , which establish penalties of fines and imprisonment for violation of regulations. Finally, in this section, the rule removes paragraph
(b)discussing 36 CFR part 71, because the regulations there are outdated. Section 2932.57 Prohibited acts and penalties. In this section, which covers prohibited acts and penalties related to special recreation permits, the final rule amends paragraph (b)(3) by removing reference to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and adding REA in its place. Section 12(d) of REA establishes limits on penalties for failure to pay recreation fees established under the Act. It provides for such failures to be punishable as Class A or Class B misdemeanors, but limits fines for a first offense to $100. (Under 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581, a Class A misdemeanor is subject to a penalty of not more than $100,000 for an individual ($200,000 for an organization) or one year in jail. A Class B misdemeanor is subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual ($10,000 for an organization) or six months in jail.) We have also revised paragraph
(b)of section 2932.57 to reflect this provision of REA. Section 2933.33 Prohibited acts and penalties. The final rule amends this section, which states prohibitions and imposes penalties related to recreation use permits, by removing references to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and substituting REA, where appropriate. To conform the prohibited acts in paragraph
(a)of the section to the table of penalties in paragraph (d), we have added a provision to paragraph
(a)requiring compliance with recreation use permit stipulations and conditions. The final rule also removes unnecessary internal cross-references in this section, and corrects inaccurate legal citations. IV. Procedural Matters Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) This document is not a significant rule and was not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
(1)This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule implements a new statute that affects all land managing agencies. The other agencies are cooperating with the BLM in developing general guidelines for implementing the statute.
(3)This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. It maintains current policies on user fees.
(4)This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. It cites new statutory authority that does not have substantially different effects on the program or the public. During fiscal year 2004, the BLM issued just over 109,000 Special Recreation Permits of all kinds, with revenues totaling a little over $8 million deposited into the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Fee Demonstration Project, and other miscellaneous accounts. These numbers are derived from the Public Land Statistics, and represent an increase of slightly more than fivefold since 1996. On the other hand, according to the American Recreation Coalition, Americans spent more than $108 billion on wildlife-related recreation (fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and so forth) alone. We cite these numbers to illustrate that the fees charged under the BLM's recreation program are relatively small when compared with the revenues realized by a typical segment of the overall national recreation industry. Special Recreation Permits are generally obtained by commercial outfitters and guides, river running companies, sponsors of competitive events, “snow bird” seasonal mobile home campers who use the BLM's long-term visitor areas, and private individuals and groups using certain special areas. Under current regulations, use fees are established by the BLM Director, who may adjust them from time to time to reflect changes in costs and the market, and published periodically in the **Federal Register** . The BLM may charge actual costs, subject to certain limitations. During fiscal year 2004, the BLM issued just over 655,000 Recreation Use Permits for use of fee sites, with revenues totaling a little over $5,200,000. We state these figures to give some idea of the scope of the BLM recreation program in economic terms, and to show that the revenues from the program do not approach $100 million annually. The REA makes changes in the authorities for the BLM's recreation fees, but Section 3 of the Act does not change the policy for setting those fees: “The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits and services provided to the visitor,” and “[t]he Secretary shall consider comparable fees charged elsewhere and by other public agencies and by nearby private sector operators.” As for the penalty aspect of the rule, in recent years fines assessed for violation of recreation permit provisions have not approached the threshold. Since 2000, we have issued on average 300 citations annually for violations of special recreation permit and recreation use permit provisions, combined, imposing average fines of $100.00 for each, for an approximate average annual total of $30,000. Thus, it is clear that the changes in the final rule will not have economic effects exceeding $100 million annually. One comment challenged the BLM's reference to the American Recreation Coalition's statement that Americans spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreation alone, stating that the figure was unsubstantiated and does not even apply to recreation activities on the public lands, and that much of that recreation occurred on non-BLM lands. (The source for the American Recreation Coalition's statement is the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the tenth in a series of surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Census Bureau. It states that Americans spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreation in 2000.) The Executive Order requires us to determine not only that the rule “will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy,” which this rule clearly does not, as demonstrated above, but that it “will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.” The BLM presented the American Recreation Coalition datum, relating to one segment of the national recreation economy, merely to compare the small economic effect of the penalties imposed by the rule, and the negligible effect of the administrative changes made to conform to the REA, to the total amount of money that is spent nationwide on a typical segment of the outdoor recreation economy, to show that the rule should not affect the national economy in a material way, not to justify the rule or to offer the figures as *bona fide* . The penalties imposed on persons who violate regulations on special recreation permits and recreation use permits are not substantively changed except to reduce the penalty for not paying a fee. While public lands recreation is an important element of many local economies in the Western States, and substantial revenues are generated by the public lands recreation industry, it is clear that the effects of the changes in this rule will not “adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.” The data cited in the proposed rule were actually not necessary to illustrate this point. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The BLM recognizes that most commercial recreation enterprises—outfitters, guides, river-running companies, local retail outlets—are small businesses, and that over 5,000 of them annually hold BLM commercial or competitive permits. Nevertheless, this final rule does not change permit fees, but rather updates the regulations to reflect changes in authorities for the fees and changes their allocation. Penalties for non-payment of fees do not affect outfitters, event organizers, and other commercial permittees, who must pay the fees before receiving permits. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. *This rule:* • Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. See the discussion under Regulatory Planning and Review, above. • Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The rule will have no effect on the 3 percent basic use fee that the BLM's fee schedule (set by the 1984 policy, not regulations) requires outfitters to pay. • Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The changes in the regulations required by enactment of REA will not lead to increases in user fees or any other cost factors that may impel recreationists to travel to comparable foreign recreation destinations. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule has no effect on governmental or Tribal entities. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the BLM finds that the rule does not have significant takings implications. The final rule does not provide for forfeiture or derogation of private property rights. It merely updates the regulations to reflect changes in statutory authorities for the BLM recreation program covered by the regulations. A takings implications assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM finds that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule does not preempt state law. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, we have determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The rule merely updates the regulations to reflect changes in statutory authorities. E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that this final rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications. The rule has no effect on Tribal lands, and affect member of Tribes only to the extent that they use public lands and facilities for recreation. The rule merely updates the regulations to reflect changes in statutory authorities. E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a significant energy action. It will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. The rule does not limit land use by energy companies. It applies only to permits for recreational use of public lands, how the BLM collects revenues and applies them to the program. E.O. 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this final rule is administrative in nature and only reflects changes in statutory authorities. This rule does not impede facilitating cooperative conservation. It does not affect the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources, local participation in the Federal decision-making process, or relate to the protection of public health and safety. Paperwork Reduction Act These regulations do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* National Environmental Policy Act The BLM has determined that this final rule updating the recreation permit regulations to recognize and reflect changes in statutory authorities governing the payment and allocation of permit fees and the penalties for nonpayment is a regulation of an administrative, financial, legal, and procedural nature. Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM), *Chapter 2, Appendix 1* . In addition, the final rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusions listed in *516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2* . Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations ( *40 CFR 1508.4* ) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term “categorical exclusions” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Therefore, a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. Author The principal authors of this final rule are Lee Larson (retired), and Anthony Bobo of the Recreation and Visitor Services Division, Washington Office, BLM, assisted by Ted Hudson of the Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington Office, BLM. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2930 Penalties, Public lands, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. Dated: January 31, 2007. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons explained in the preamble, and under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1740, we amend chapter II, subtitle B of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 2930—PERMITS FOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS 1. The authority citation for part 2930 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740; 16 U.S.C. 6802. Subpart 2931—Permits for Recreation; General 2. Revise section 2931.3 to read as follows: § 2931.3 What are the authorities for these regulations? The statutory authorities underlying the regulations in this part are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* , and the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. 6801 *et seq.*
(a)The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) contains the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) general land use management authority over the public lands, and establishes outdoor recreation as one of the principal uses of those lands (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8)). Section 302(b) of FLPMA directs the Secretary of the Interior to regulate through permits or other instruments the use of the public lands, which includes commercial recreation use. Section 303 of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to promulgate and enforce regulations, and establishes the penalties for violations of the regulations.
(b)The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act
(REA)authorizes the BLM to collect fees for recreational use in areas meeting certain criteria (16 U.S.C. 6802(f) and (g)(2)), and to issue special recreation permits for group activities and recreation events (16 U.S.C. 6802(h).
(c)18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq.* establish sentences of fines and imprisonment for violation of regulations. Subpart 2932—Special Recreation Permits for Commercial Use, Competitive Events, Organized Groups, and Recreation Use in Special Areas [Amended] 3. Amend section 2932.57 by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 2932.57 Prohibited acts and penalties.
(b)*Penalties.*
(1)If you are convicted of any act prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(7) of this section, or of failing to obtain a Special Recreation Permit under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may be subject to a sentence of a fine or imprisonment or both for a Class A misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq.* under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)).
(2)If you are convicted of failing to pay a fee required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may be subject to a sentence of a fine not to exceed $100 for the first offense, or a sentence of a fine and or imprisonment for a Class A or B misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq.* for all subsequent offenses.
(3)You may also be subject to civil action for unauthorized use of the public lands or related waters and their resources, for violations of permit terms, conditions, or stipulations, or for uses beyond those allowed by permit. Subpart 2933—Recreation Use Permits for Fee Areas 4. Amend § 2933.33 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(d)to read as follows: § 2933.33 Prohibited acts and penalties.
(a)*Prohibited acts.* You must not—
(1)Fail to obtain a use permit or pay any fees required by this subpart;
(2)Violate the stipulations or conditions of a permit issued under this subpart;
(3)Fail to pay any fees within the time specified;
(4)Fail to display any required proof of payment of fees;
(5)Willfully and knowingly possess, use, publish as true, or sell to another, any forged, counterfeited, or altered document or instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee payment;
(6)Willfully and knowingly use any document or instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee payment, that the BLM issued to or intended another to use; or
(7)Falsely represent yourself to be a person to whom the BLM has issued a document or instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee payment.
(b)*Evidence of nonpayment.* The BLM will consider failure to display proof of payment on your unattended vehicle parked within a fee area, where payment is required to be prima facie evidence of nonpayment.
(d)*Types of penalties.* You may be subject to the following fines or penalties for violating the provisions of this subpart: If you are convicted of . . . then you may be subject to . . . under . . .
(1)Failing to obtain a permit under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or any act prohibited by paragraph (a)(4), (5), or
(6)of this section A sentence of a fine and/or imprisonment for a Class A misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq* The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)).
(2)Violating any regulation in this subpart or any condition of a Recreation Use Permit A sentence of a fine and/or imprisonment for a Class A misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq* The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)).
(3)Failing to pay a Recreation Use Permit fee required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or any act prohibited by paragraph (a)(3) of this section A fine not to exceed $100 for the first offense, or a sentence of a fine and/or imprisonment for a Class A or B misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 *et seq.* for all subsequent offenses The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6811). [FR Doc. E7-2876 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P 72 34 Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of the comment period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * a Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)hinge pin rupture that causes an uncommanded NLG retraction. Investigations identified the unsafe condition resulting from an incomplete thermal treatment done on three hinge pin batches lowering their mechanical properties with a high risk of deformation under service loads. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the specified products, which was published in the **Federal Register** on September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54446). That earlier NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above. Since that NPRM was issued, EADS SOCATA amended TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, dated July 2006, to extend the landing gear applicability to Model TBM 700 aircraft equipped with nose landing gear (part number (P/N) 21130-001-02) with serial numbers (S/Ns) B155 through B173 and EUR174 through EUR240. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency AD No. 2006-0271-E, Issue date: September 4, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: * * * a Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)hinge pin rupture that causes an uncommanded NLG retraction. Investigations identified the unsafe condition resulting from an incomplete thermal treatment done on three hinge pin batches lowering their mechanical properties with a high risk of deformation under service loads. The MCAI requires: * * * first to identify the concerned NLG and second to detect the defective hinge pins installed on aircraft or those held as spare and replace them with new ones. This AD also requires the introduction of interim operational instructions in order to diminish as many as possible stresses on the NLG before the embodiment of the corrective actions. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Comments We have considered the following comments received on the earlier NPRM. The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) provides comments to the MCAI AD process pertaining to how the FAA addresses publishing manufacturer service information as part of the proposed AD action. The commenter states that the rule, as proposed, attempts to require compliance with a public law by reference to a private writing (as referenced in paragraph
(e)of the proposed AD). The commenter would like the FAA to incorporate by reference
(IBR)the EADS SOCATA Alert service bulletin. We agree with the commenter. However, we do not IBR any document in a proposed AD action, instead we IBR the document in the final rule. Since we are considering issuing the proposal as a final rule AD action, EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006, may be incorporated by reference if and when this proposed rule is issued as a final rule. MARPA requests IBR documents be made available to the public by publication in the **Federal Register** or in the Docket Management System (DMS). We are currently reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins in the Department of Transportation's DMS as part of the AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. EADS SOCATA provides comments pertaining to TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, dated July 2006, referenced in the NPRM. The NPRM proposes an AD associated with EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, dated July 2006. In September 2006, EADS SOCATA issued an amendment to the service bulletin. This amendment extends the landing gear applicability to Model TBM 700 aircraft equipped with nose landing gear P/N 21130-001-02 with S/Ns B155 through B173 and EUR174 through EUR240. EADS SOCATA specifies in TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, dated July 2006, that the check of the nose landing gear S/N and the operational procedure must be done before the next flight. The batch number check and pin check must be done after a flight at an approved maintenance center. EASA canceled Emergency AD 2006-0226-E and issued Emergency AD No. 2006-0271-E, Issue date: September 4, 2006. The NPRM also references this EASA AD. The FAA acknowledges the requirements in the service bulletin and latest EASA AD. However, the pin batch number check and application of the operational procedure are both specified as prior to further flight actions in the service bulletin. The FAA determined that this action is not an urgent safety of flight condition. We established the compliance time at 30 days to do both the pin batch number check and replacement of any affected parts. The operational procedure was only temporary until the replacement was done. Therefore, we are not requiring the operational procedure as part of the FAA AD. The only changes we are making to the proposed AD are
(1)referencing the revised service bulletin to read EADS SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006; and
(2)extending the landing gear applicability to Model TBM 700 aircraft equipped with nose landing gear (part number (P/N) 21130-001-02) with serial numbers (S/Ns) B155 through B173 and EUR174 through EUR240. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed AD. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 256 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,025 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $303,360, or $1,185 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EADS Socata:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by March 23, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Model TBM 700 airplanes fitted with nose landing gear
(NLG)part number (P/N) 21130-001-02 with serial numbers (S/N) B155 through B173 and S/N EUR 174 through EUR 240, that are certificated in any U.S. category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)describes the unsafe condition as follows: * * * a Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)hinge pin rupture that causes an uncommanded NLG retraction. Investigations identified the unsafe condition resulting from an incomplete thermal treatment done on three hinge pin batches lowering their mechanical properties with a high risk of deformation under service loads. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following:
(1)Identify the NLG hinge pin batch number as instructed in paragraph B of the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006.
(i)For airplanes with the correct pin batch numbers, no further action is required. Return the airplane to service as instructed in EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006.
(ii)For airplanes with pins from the defective pin batch numbers or for which the batch number cannot be read, do all the actions as instructed in paragraphs B(5), C, and D of the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006.
(2)As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install on any EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplane an NLG actuator hinge pin coming from the three defective batches identified as EUR BC 21344-000-01, EUR BD 21344-000-01, and EUR BF 21344-000-01 on NLG part number 21130-001-02. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The service bulletin and MCAI require interim operational instructions until the corrective actions are done. This AD requires the corrective action at the same time as the pin batch number check. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)This AD is related to European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2006-0271-E, Issue date: September 4, 2006, which references EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, Amendment 1, dated September 2006. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 13, 2007. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2888 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration 20 CFR Parts 652, 661, 662, 663, 664 and 667 RIN 1205-AB46 Workforce Investment Act Amendments; Supplement AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor. ACTION: Proposed rule; Supplement. SUMMARY: Given that the Department of Labor (the Department) is now posting public comments on the Internet through the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site, the federal eRulemaking portal, the following language should be inserted at the end of the ADDRESSES section of the preamble for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 71 FR 76558 (December 20, 2006). “Please note that comments received will be posted on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is the federal eRulemaking portal and all comments received will be available and accessible to the public. Therefore, the Department recommends that commenters safeguard their personal information such as Social Security Numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses included in their comments as such may become easily available to the public via the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. If a comment is e-mailed directly to the Department's address without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , the comment will have the sender's e-mail address attached to it and therefore, the e-mail address and information contained therein may be posted online. It is the responsibility of the commenter to safeguard their information. All comments received will be posted on *http://www.regulations.gov* and may be posted without information redacted. However, for comments that were submitted to ETA before the publication of this Supplement, ETA will make every effort to redact apparently confidential information before posting the comment on *http://www.regulations.gov.* ” DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be in writing and must be received on or before February 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Maria K. Flynn, Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone:
(202)693-3700 (VOICE) or 887-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Please note that these are not toll-free numbers. Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day of February, 2007. Emily Stover DeRocco, Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-2861 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FM-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 United States Navy Restricted Area, Key West Harbor, at U.S. Naval Base, Key West, FL AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making and request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to amend the existing regulations for a restricted area at Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW). Naval Air Station Key West maintains ammunition magazines on Fleming Island that have explosive safety quality-distance
(ESQD)requirements in place to ensure reasonable safety from serious injury should there be a magazine fire or explosion. The current restricted area regulations do not adequately cover the ESQD requirements. This amendment to the existing regulation is necessary to protect the public from potentially hazardous conditions that may exist as a result of military use of the area. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2007-0003, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail:* *david.b.olson@usace.army.mil* . Include the docket number, COE-2007-0003, in the subject line of the message. *Mail:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, *Attn:* CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to docket number COE-2007-0003. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Consideration will be given to all comments received within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Mr. Jon M. Griffin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Regulatory Division, at 904-232-1680. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is proposing to amend the regulations in 33 CFR part 334 by modifying the restricted area at section 334.610(a)(4). The modification to the existing restricted area is described in the body of this notice. The Ammunition and Hazardous Materials Handling Review Board has cited NASKW for allowing anchored pleasure craft to be within the inhabited building distance of the Fleming Island Magazine area. The amendment to the regulations will allow the Commanding Office NASKW to restrict passage of persons, watercraft, and vessels to ensure that ESQD requirements related to the Fleming Island Magazine area are met. Procedural Requirements a. *Review Under Executive Order 12866* . The proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. b. *Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the amendment of this restricted area would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule, if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities. c. *Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act.* Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. It may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. d. *Unfunded Mandates Act.* This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, is not a Federal private sector mandate and is not subject to the requirements of Section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Laws 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ). We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend a portion of 33 CFR Part 334 as follows: PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 2. Amend § 334.610 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 334.610 Key West Harbor, at U.S. Naval Base, Key West, Fla.; naval restricted areas and danger zone.
(a)*The areas.* * * *
(4)Beginning at the last point designated in area 3 at Latitude 24°34.0550′ N., Longitude 81°47.9166′ W.; proceed in a northwesterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.2725′ N., Longitude 81°48.1304′ W.; thence proceed in a northeasterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.3562′ N., Longitude 81°48.0192′ W.; thence proceed in a northwesterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.4506′ N., Longitude 81°48.1444′ W.; thence proceed in a northwesterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.5619′ N., Longitude 81°48.1873′ W.; thence proceed in a northeasterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.9084′ N., Longitude 81°48.0945′ W.; thence proceed in a northeasterly direction to a point at Latitude 24°34.9809′ N., Longitude 81°47.9400′ W.; proceed in a general northerly direction maintaining a distance of 100 yards from the shoreline of Fleming Key, continue around Fleming Key to a point easterly of the southeast corner of Fleming Key at Latitude 24°34.0133′ N., Longitude 81°47.6250′ W.; thence easterly to Latitude 24°33.9600′ N., Longitude 81°47.3333′ W.; thence southerly to a point on the shore at Latitude 24°33.9117′ N., Longitude 81°47.3450′ W. The Department of the Navy plans to install buoys along that portion of the restricted area boundary which marks the outer edge of the explosive hazard safety distance requirements. Dated: February 15, 2007. Lawrence A. Lang, Acting Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. [FR Doc. E7-2874 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803; FRL-8278-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP)and Operating Permits Program. The revisions clarify the rule and streamline processes without negatively impacting air quality. This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the federally-approved rules. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision and Title V revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 9, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-2807 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From Threatened to Endangered and Initiation of a 5-Year Review AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of a 5-year review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog ( *Cynomys parvidens* ) from threatened to endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a further status review in response to this petition. We are, however, initiating a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act for this species because such a review has not been conducted in the last 5 years. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the Utah prairie dog or threats to the species. DATES: The 90-day finding announced in this document was made on February 21, 2007. Comments and information for the 5-year review must be submitted on or before April 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: The petition, administrative finding, supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. The petition and finding are available on our Web site at *http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/utprairiedog/.* If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of the following methods:
(1)You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office, at the address given above.
(2)You may submit your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to *utahprairiedog@fws.gov.* For directions on how to submit comments by e-mail, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section of this notice. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by mail, hand-delivery, or fax.
(3)You may fax your comments to
(801)975-3331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ) (telephone 801-975-3330; facsimile 801-975-3331). 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.* ) (Act), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information available in our files at the time of the petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our 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 petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 90-day finding process 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. A substantial finding should be made when the Service deems that adequate and reliable information has been presented that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted. In making our determination on the petition evaluated in this 90 day finding, which petitions us to reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered, we have made our determination on whether the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Petition On February 3, 2003, we received a petition submitted by Forest Guardians, Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante Wilderness Project, Boulder Regional Group, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams (Petitioners) requesting that we reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered. We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter to Nicole Rosmarino on November 21, 2003. In that letter we also advised the Petitioners that, due to prior listing allocations in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, we would not be able to begin processing the petition in a timely manner. On February 2, 2004, we received a Notice of Intent to sue from the Petitioners for failure to issue the 90-day finding. On February 2, 2006, the Petitioners filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 2, 2006, the parties reached a settlement agreement that requires the Service to make a 90-day finding on the petition on or before February 17, 2007. This finding constitutes our compliance with the settlement agreement. Species Information Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents, which also includes squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots. There are five species of prairie dogs, all of which are native to North America, and all of which have non-overlapping geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p. 232). Taxonomically, prairie dogs ( *Cynomys spp.* ) are divided into two subgenera: The white-tail and black-tail. The Utah prairie dog ( *C. parvidens* ) is a member of the white-tail group, subgenus *Leucocrossuromys.* Other members of this group, which also occur in Utah, are the white-tailed prairie dog ( *C. leucurus* ) and the Gunnison prairie dog ( *C. gunnisoni* ). The Utah prairie dog is distinguished by a relatively short (30 to 70 millimeters (mm)/1.2 to 2.8 inches (in)) white- or gray-tipped tail (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; Hoogland 2003, p. 232). The Utah prairie dog is most closely related to the white-tailed prairie dog, and chromosomal and biochemical data suggest that these two species may once have belonged to a single interbreeding species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16). The two species are now separated by ecological and physiographic barriers. Both Chesser (1984, p. 4) and Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 11) found that genetic variance within Utah prairie dog populations is very low, less than half that commonly observed for black-tailed prairie dogs ( *C. ludovicianus* ). This may be the result of genetic drift on small populations (Chesser 1984, p. 5). Life History Detailed information on the life history of the Utah prairie dog can be found in our May 29, 1984, final rule to reclassify the species as threatened (49 FR 22330), in the recovery plan for the species (Service 1991a), and on our Web site at *http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/utprairiedog/.* A brief synopsis of information on the species' life history that is relevant to this finding follows: Utah prairie dogs are true hibernators, ceasing most surface activity during harsh winter months. Female Utah prairie dogs come into estrus (period of greatest female reproductive responsiveness usually coinciding with ovulation) and are sexually receptive for several hours for only 1 day during the breeding season (generally mid-March through early April). Consequently, only 67 percent of female prairie dogs wean a litter, and they have only one litter per year (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919, 920). Litters range between 1 to 7 pups, but average between 3.88 and 4.8 pups (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10; Hoogland 2001, p. 923). The young attain adult size by October and reach sexual maturity at the age of 1 year (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 9). Less than 50 percent of Utah prairie dogs survive to breeding age (Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Male Utah prairie dogs frequently cannibalize juveniles, which can eliminate 20 percent up to the entire litter before the pups first appear aboveground (Hoogland 2003, p. 238). After the first year, female survivorship is higher than male survivorship, though still low for both sexes. Only about 20 percent of females and less than 10 percent of males survive to age 4 (Hoogland 2001, Figures 1 and 2, pp. 919-920). Such low survivorship severely limits prairie dog reproduction (Hoogland 2001, p. 921). Utah prairie dogs rarely live beyond 5 years (Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Utah prairie dogs are organized into social groups called clans, consisting of an adult male, several adult females, and their offspring (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 38). Clans maintain geographic territorial boundaries, which only the young regularly cross, although all animals use common feeding grounds. Habitat Requirements Available moisture and prairie dog abundance and density are positively correlated (Crocker-Bedford 1976, pp. 71-72). Prairie dogs appear to prefer swale type formations where moist herbage is available even during drought periods (Collier 1975, p. 43; Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 24). Soil characteristics are also an important factor in the location of Utah prairie dog colonies. A well-drained area is necessary for home burrows. The soil should be deep enough to allow burrowing to depths sufficient to provide protection from predators and insulation from environmental and temperature extremes. Prairie dogs must be able to inhabit a burrow system 1 meter
(m)[3.3 feet (ft)] underground without becoming wet. Prairie dogs will avoid areas where brushy species dominate, and will eventually decline or disappear in areas invaded by brush (Collier 1975, pp. 44, 59; Player and Urness 1983, p. 522). Food Habits Prairie dogs are predominantly herbivores, and they prefer alfalfa and grasses during all seasons (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8). Grasses are the staple of their annual diet, with forbs being preferred in summer and fall. Although forbs, other than alfalfa, are not always highly preferred items throughout the year, they may be critical to a prairie dog colony's survival during drought. Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 7) found that plant seeding in Utah prairie dog transplant areas increased plant diversity and prairie dogs were more likely to use or persist in seeded areas. Current Distribution and Numbers The Utah prairie dog is the westernmost member of the genus *Cynomys.* The species' range, which is limited to the southwestern quarter of Utah, is currently the most restricted of all prairie dog species in the United States. As could best be ascertained by Collier (1975, pp. 15-17), the species' distribution was much broader prior to control programs and at one time extended across the desert almost to the Nevada-Utah State line. Collier and Spillett (1975, p. 151) estimate a 50 percent range reduction from 1925 to 1975, with the greatest declines occurring in the western and northern parts of the range. However, due to the lack of data from the early to mid 1900s, this estimate is speculative. Factors that resulted in the historical decline of Utah prairie dogs were poisoning, which removed Utah prairie dogs from approximately 8,094 hectares
(ha)[20,000 acres (ac)] of their range in Sevier, Wayne, Garfield, and Iron Counties prior to 1963; drought; habitat alteration, primarily in the form of cultivation to agricultural crops; shooting; and disease (Collier and Spillett 1972, pp. 33-35). Major predators include coyotes ( *Canis latrans* ), badgers ( *Taxidea taxis* ), long-tailed weasels ( *Mustela frenata* ), various raptor species, and prairie rattlesnakes ( *Crotalus viridis* ) (Service 1991a, p. 9; Hoogland 2001, p. 922). In established colonies, predators probably do not exert a controlling influence on numbers of prairie dogs (Collier and Spillett 1972, p. 36). Long-term overgrazing, drought, disease (plague), and competition with Uinta ground squirrels ( *Spermophilus armatus* ) have contributed to larger-scale historic declines in prairie dog numbers, including loss of entire colonies (Service 1991a, pp. 11-12). Historically, Utah prairie dog colonies were found as far west as Pine and Buckskin Valleys in Beaver and Iron Counties, and may have occurred as far north as Nephi, Utah, southeast to Bryce Canyon National Park, east to the foothills of the Aquarius Plateau, and south to the northern borders of Kane and Washington Counties (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1). Prior to 1920, the species occurred within approximately 713 map sections (184,666 ha/456,320 ac) in 10 areas of southwestern Utah (Collier 1975, p. 15). In 1971, Collier (1975, p. 15) determined the species occurred within 96 sections (24,863 ha/61,440 ac), based on landowner questionnaires. The 1920 and 1971 habitat estimates are misleading because they assume all 640 acres within a section are occupied if the occurrence of Utah prairie dogs was reported from that section, regardless of actual numbers or distribution within the section. We believe the best information concerning actual Utah prairie dog habitat is from ongoing mapping efforts conducted by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). UDWR has mapped 17,444 ha (43,106 ac) of habitat throughout the current and historic Utah prairie dog range; however, current occupancy has not been verified for this mapped habitat area, or for other areas of historic habitat. The total number of Utah prairie dogs was estimated to be 95,000 animals prior to control programs in the 1920s (McDonald 1993, p. 2). However, estimates of the size of former populations are difficult to make because no formal censuses were conducted prior to 1976. The Utah prairie dog currently occurs in three areas within southwestern Utah, which are designated as recovery areas:
(1)The Awapa Plateau;
(2)the Paunsaugunt region, along the east fork and main stem of the Sevier River; and,
(3)the West Desert region of eastern Iron County, with a few isolated colonies existing in mountain and desert valleys in eastern Iron and Beaver Counties (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1). For more information on these recovery areas, refer to our recovery plan for the species (Service 1991a). Although the abundance of the species in the three recovery areas vary considerably from year to year, the overall species' population abundance is considered stable. Below we describe each of the recovery areas. Counts are conducted in the spring prior to emergence of the pups and represent adults only. Crocker-Bedford (1975 page 6) estimate that only 40 to 60% of Utah prairie dogs are above ground at any one time. Therefore, these spring counts represent approximately 50% of the adult population. The Awapa Plateau Recovery Area encompasses portions of Piute, Garfield, Wayne, and Sevier Counties. Spring counts conducted from 1976 through 2005 have varied from 201 to 1,145 animals; in 2005, UDWR counted 571 animals on 32 colonies (15 occupied) (UDWR 2005). The Paunsaugunt Recovery Area includes public and private lands primarily in Garfield County, with a small area of Iron County. Spring counts conducted from 1976 through 2005 have varied from 652 to 2,205 animals; in 2005, UDWR counted a low of 652 animals on 27 colonies (14 occupied) (UDWR 2005). The West Desert Recovery Area is primarily in Iron County, but extends into southern Beaver County and northern Washington County. Spring counts conducted from 1976 through 2005 have varied from 610 to 4,778 animals; in 2005, UDWR counted 4,158 animals on 34 colonies (27 occupied) (UDWR 2005). Previous Federal Actions We listed the Utah prairie dog as an endangered species on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. On November 5, 1979, the UDWR petitioned the Service to remove the Utah prairie dog from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service found that this petition contained substantial scientific and commercial information, and the species was reclassified from endangered to threatened on May 29, 1984 (49 FR 22330). As part of that May 29, 1984, rule, we promulgated a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to allow the regulated take of up to 5,000 animals annually. On June 14, 1991, we published a final rule amending the special rule to allow regulated take of up to 6,000 animals annually throughout the species' range (56 FR 27438). Threats Analysis Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of five threat factors:
(A)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)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, either singly or in combination. Under the Act, a threatened species is defined as a species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is defined as a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we evaluate each of the five listing factors to determine whether the level of threat identified by information in the petition and in our files substantiates an increase in threat level to the extent that uplisting of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered may be warranted. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The Petitioners state that threats to the species' habitat included the following:
(1)Loss of historic range, urbanization, land conversion, and sale of State lands;
(2)livestock grazing, resulting in conversion of grasslands to shrublands; depletion of forage; degradation of riparian areas; proliferation of weeds; alteration of fire ecology; and impacts to soils;
(3)road construction, off-highway vehicle
(OHV)use, and recreation;
(4)oil, gas, and mineral development and seismic exploration; and
(5)impacts of isolation and fragmentation. Loss of Historic Range, Urbanization, Land Conversion, and Sale of State Lands The Petitioners state that mapped (or estimated) Utah prairie dog habitat has declined from 181,299 to 2,824 ha (448,000 to 6,977 ac) as of 1975, and that at the time the petition was developed, only 31 percent of Utah prairie dog habitat was on public lands where recovery efforts are concentrated (Rosmarino 2003, p. 54). The Petitioners state that much of the historic, high-quality Utah prairie dog habitat was in valleys, where crop agriculture and urban activities and expansion have historically occurred or are ongoing (Rosmarino 2003, p. 55). The Petitioners identify habitat loss due to urbanization as a concern, particularly in Iron County in the West Desert Recovery Area (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 55-56). According to the petition, this recovery area has the highest percentage of Utah prairie dogs located on private land and also is undergoing the highest rate of municipal development when compared to any other area in Utah prairie dog range. Petitioners state that, between 1990 and 2000, the human population growth rate was 62.5 percent in Iron County, and that Garfield and Beaver County's populations increased by 19 and 26 percent respectively. The petitioners discuss various projects that resulted in translocation of Utah prairie dogs and loss of their habitat. These include legal activities performed under the Iron County Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, and 11 other actions legally authorized through section 7 consultation. They also cite UDWR records of 7 colonies illegally destroyed during 1995 and 1996. While the Petitioners are mainly concerned with increasing development on private lands, they also cite U.S. Forest Service
(USFS)concerns regarding increased impacts from development on private lands adjacent to public lands, including golf course and cabin site development. The Petitioners state that there is also increased all-terrain vehicle
(ATV)usage from private housing developments resulting in impacts to the species (Reference, p. 57). The Petitioners are concerned that School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) lands containing Utah prairie dog habitat are being sold to private landowners and, therefore, are not safe from future development (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 75-76). We believe that the Petitioners' assessment of the extent of historic habitat loss is inaccurate. It is based on the statement by Collier (1975, p. 15) that Utah prairie dogs at one time occurred within 713 sections of land. However, much of the area within those sections contains unsuitable habitat and was never occupied by prairie dogs. Therefore, estimating historic habitat on the total number of acres within those 713 sections (184,666 ha/456,320 ac) is misleading. The majority of Utah prairie dogs still occur on private lands. However, through implementation of the Interim Conservation Strategy
(ICS)(see Factor D discussion), the Recovery Team has made a substantial effort since 1997 to restore and enhance Utah prairie dog habitat on public lands. As of 2005, 37 percent of Utah prairie dogs occurred on public lands (UDWR 2005). We acknowledge that historic Utah prairie dog habitat has been lost due to agricultural conversion, a factor considered in our May 29, 1984, reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330). However, the Petitioners do not quantify areas lost to agriculture historically, and they do not provide any information on future losses from new agricultural developments. We do not have any information indicating that there have been any recent conversions of Utah prairie dog habitat to agricultural use. We also do not have any information indicating that development of private lands is occurring within the Utah prairie dog range, other than that legally authorized through HCP permits. The Iron County HCP permits a limited amount of development on private lands in prairie dog habitat. These losses are mitigated through restoration of habitat on Federal lands and the translocation of animals from impacted private lands to approved translocation sites on Federal lands. In addition, 97 ha (240 ac) of privately owned occupied habitat in the Parowan Valley have been protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement under the Iron County HCP and are managed for Utah prairie dogs (see further HCP discussion under Factor D). Although we do not dispute USFS accounts of increased activities on Federal lands as a result of nearby private developments, the Petitioners only identify one specific development in the Powell Ranger District that could negatively impact Utah prairie dogs, and we have no additional information in our files that shows impacts claimed by the Petitioner. Therefore, based on the best available date (i.e. only in this case), we believe these impacts are small and localized. The Petitioners provided no information to support loss on Federal lands due to recreational impacts. We also acknowledge that SITLA does sell parcels to private landowners, who then may propose development projects on these properties. However, we do not have information that historic or occupied Utah prairie dog habitat has been lost due to development occurring on SITLA lands that have been sold, and the Petitioners did not cite any pending sales on lands containing Utah prairie dog colonies. Recent activities on SITLA lands include the issuance of a perpetual conservation easement on 304 ha (750 ac) of Utah prairie dog habitat in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area that will serve as a conservation bank. Livestock Grazing The petition states that livestock grazing, particularly overgrazing, can degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by causing shrub encroachment, reducing grass cover and vegetative biomass, degrading riparian areas, facilitating noxious weed proliferation, altering fire ecology, damaging cryptobiotic crusts (communities of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and microorganisms that colonize the surface of bare soil), and degrading soil conditions (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 57-75). The Petitioners state that mechanical or chemical shrub encroachment treatments may not ultimately result in a decrease in shrub vegetative production (Rosmarino 2003, p. 60). The petition states that spring grazing regimes may be particularly harmful to cool-season grasses preferred by Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 61-62), and the Petitioners allege that direct grazing and trampling of moist swales and riparian areas can impact prairie dog persistence in these areas (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 63-64). The Petitioners state that grazing can result in the spread of noxious weeds through direct dispersal of weed seeds in cattle fur or dung, and that opening areas to grazing makes them more susceptible to colonization and growth of weedy species. The Petitioners also assert that grazing reduces competition from native species by preferentially foraging cattle on them (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 64-69). The petition states that noxious weeds are a problem throughout Utah prairie dog range on both Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)and USFS lands (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 68-69), and the Petitioners allege that areas dominated by the exotic annual cheatgrass ( *Bromus tectorum* ) are 10 to 500 times more likely to experience wildfire. The petition also makes a number of claims related to grazing leading to a reduction in fire frequency, facilitating shrub encroachment (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 69-70), and destroying soil crusts, which result in increased erosion, decreased nutrient cycling, reduction in ground cover, and soil compaction (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 70-75). We concur that livestock grazing can have an effect on various attributes of prairie dog habitat and food supply; however, these effects can be positive as well as negative. While the petitioners cite numerous general references related to the types of impacts that grazing can have on vegetation and soils, they don't provide any specific references to show that grazing is negatively impacting Utah prairie dogs, or that such effects are becoming more severe, to the extent that uplisting may be warranted. Hoogland (2003, p. 239) notes that tall vegetation is more common in Gunnison and Utah prairie dog colonies than in black-tailed prairie dog colonies, and that it benefits the species by providing hiding cover. The Utah prairie dog vegetation guidelines have recently been revised to include a higher percentage of shrubs based on vegetative measurements in Utah prairie dog occupied habitats (Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Team [UPDRIT] 2006). Other studies suggest that prairie dog density is positively correlated with heavy grazing, which simulates the shortgrass environment preferred by prairie dogs (Fagerstone and Ramey 1996, pp. 88, 92; Marsh 1994, p. 203; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, p. 406). A recent study of impacts on Utah prairie dogs of varying grazing intensities on the Awapa Plateau found that, although heavy grazing did not appear to impact burrow density, it did significantly decrease vigilance time (watchfulness or paying close and continuous attention), which could be detrimental to Utah prairie dogs (Elmore 2006, pp. 90, 93). Furthermore, while we do not disagree that Utah prairie dogs prefer moist swale formations, the types of habitats occupied by Utah prairie dogs do not contain the structural complexity typical of riparian habitats, including defined channels and typical riparian vegetation consisting of trees and shrubs. The swales occupied by Utah prairie dogs tend to be dominated by grasses. The Petitioners provided no information regarding the impacts of grazing to swales, and we have no additional information in our files describing potential impacts of this activity to the species. McDonald
(1993)recommended that studies be undertaken to evaluate livestock impacts and grazing regimes. He also recommended that species-specific vegetation objectives for transplant locations should be developed, and that grazing management should be implemented appropriately to meet these vegetation objectives (McDonald 1993, p. 60). Interim vegetation guidelines were identified in the Utah Prairie Dog ICS (UPDRIT 1997, Appendix 1, pp. 19-21) and were updated in January 2006, based on additional information from occupied colonies within various habitat types (UPDRIT 2006). Monitoring is occurring on Federal lands managed by the BLM Cedar City Field Office to determine if Utah prairie dog sites meet the guidelines. Habitat management actions are being undertaken at sites that do not meet vegetation objectives (for an example, see BLM 2004). The UPDRIT further developed recommendations specifically aimed at habitat improvement and research to determine more precise habitat suitability criteria (UPDRIT 1997, pp. 1, 5-12). Research was initiated in 2002 to identify appropriate grazing and vegetation management practices and to evaluate the effects of increasing plant diversity on survival of transplanted Utah prairie dogs. Preliminary results from the drought years of 2002 and 2003 showed that, under extreme drought conditions, forage utilization by livestock (cattle and sheep) of more than 33 percent of available forage led to dramatic declines of Utah prairie dog weight gains, overwinter survivorship, and reproduction. Conversely, seeding of rangeland to increase total plant and forb diversity by 33 to 40 percent almost doubled the density of transplanted prairie dogs in 2004 (Ritchie and Brown 2005, p. 2). Ritchie and Brown
(2005)believe the results suggest that, at least under drought conditions, Utah prairie dogs are limited by available food, and that livestock grazing and range vegetation management practices may need to be adjusted to minimize impacts on Utah prairie dogs. Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 15) also note that livestock grazing in early spring, fall, and winter is generally beneficial to Utah prairie dogs because it reduces horizontal cover, which allows animals to spend less time looking for predators. When this research is finalized, results will be used to develop final vegetation guidelines and other grazing and habitat management recommendations for the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan. While we agree that habitat conditions are compromised in many areas, particularly on public lands, Utah prairie dog numbers continue to be within the range of historic fluctuations (UDWR 2005), and we have not seen large-scale population decreases. When the species was downlisted in 1984, the rangewide population estimate was 2,522 prairie dogs. The last spring range-wide count before the petition was 4,944 adult animals, which represents 50% of the adult population (Crocker-Bedford 1975, p. 6.). This represented a slight decrease from counts made between 1998 and 2000. As of 2005, 5,381 prairie dogs were counted. We have determined that the process set in place with the ICS, including research, habitat monitoring and manipulation, development of vegetation guidelines, and ultimately incorporation of realistic management recommendations into the Recovery Plan, will meet the goal of improving the persistence of Utah prairie dog colonies. In conclusion, we have determined that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that livestock grazing that results in conversion of grasslands to shrublands, depletion of forage, degradation of riparian areas, proliferation of weeds, alteration of fire ecology, and impacts to soils may be a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. Roads, Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), and Recreation The Petitioners state that roads have a negative impact on Utah prairie dogs by facilitating direct mortalities through motor vehicle strikes, and through loss of habitat due to new road construction, paving and reconstruction of existing roads, and OHV use, which can cause direct disturbance to the animals as well as degradation of vegetation (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 76-78). The Petitioners assert that recreational use in Utah prairie dog habitat, including camping, hunting and fishing, OHV use, and hiking can lead to population declines or extirpation of colonies through direct disturbance or habitat loss. The Petitioners cite increased recreational activities, including actual and potential infrastructure development, such as parking lots, campgrounds, and road and trail improvements, on three USFS Ranger Districts (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 78-79). We acknowledge that direct mortality of prairie dogs occurs on roads, and higher mortalities occur in areas where paved highways intersect or pass near Utah prairie dog colonies. We also acknowledge that OHV use and other types of recreational use, including recreational infrastructure development, has occurred in Utah prairie dog habitat, resulting in habitat loss and possibly, in the instance of the Three Peaks colony, total extirpation of the colony (Service 2005d). However, the Petitioners provided no information to quantify impacts from recreational activities, including roads, and we have no such information in our files. Direct mortality from roads was not identified as a threat in the May 29, 1984, reclassification of the species (49 FR 22330) or the recovery plan (Service 1991a). We believe that impacts of roads are limited to localized areas and do not result in population-level effects. Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and Seismic Exploration The Petitioners state that oil and gas exploration and extraction results in the degradation and loss of Utah prairie dog habitat through crushing of habitat, introduction of weeds, and increased soil erosion or soil compaction (Rosmarino 2003, p. 80). They also state that noise associated with seismic exploration, particularly in the low frequency sound range, could directly impact Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 80-82). They cite a study on the effects of seismic exploration on Utah prairie dogs (Young and Sawyer 1981, p. 2), which expressed concerns about crushed vegetation, compacted soil, and the potential for disruption of hibernating prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, p. 87). The petition states that oil and gas leases are being offered in Millard and Sevier Counties within the Utah prairie dog's range (Rosmarino 2003, p. 88). Mineral development, including shalestone and flagstone extraction, and geothermal leasing are cited as occurring within the range of the Utah prairie dog (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 88-89). We are aware that oil and gas leasing, seismic exploration, and other mineral development activities are occurring within the range of the Utah prairie dog. However, there is no scientific or commercial information either in the petition or in our files that quantifies the extent of these activities, or provides information on the actual infrastructure related to oil and gas development in occupied Utah prairie dog habitat. Although Young and Sawyer (1981, p. 2) expressed concerns (as identified in the petition) about seismic exploration, they concluded that any impact from seismic testing on Utah prairie dogs is negligible. In a similar study of white-tailed prairie dogs, Menkens and Anderson (1985, p. 13) concluded that there were negligible impacts from seismic exploration. To further minimize potential impacts of oil and gas activities on Utah prairie dogs, the Service and BLM have developed a set of avoidance and minimization measures for Federal oil and gas leases within the range of the Utah prairie dog. These include no surface disturbance within 0.8 kilometer
(km)[0.5 mile (mi)] of active Utah prairie dog colonies, and no permanent disturbance within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of potentially suitable, unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat (Service 2003). These measures currently apply to all BLM leasing activities within the Utah prairie dog's range, and lessees who follow these guidelines will be provided a streamlined section 7 consultation process. We believe that the incidences of mineral development cited in the petition are isolated activities and only affect small acreages of Utah prairie dog habitat. The petition therefore does not present substantial scientific information that these activities may be impacting the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation The petition states that due to loss and degradation of Utah prairie dog habitat, and the effects of extermination campaigns and plague, remaining prairie dog colonies tend to be isolated and fragmented. These small, isolated colonies are then more susceptible to local extirpation from factors such as sylvatic plague (Rosmarino 2003, p. 90). Factors such as low reproductive rate, genetic drift, and inbreeding may increase the potential for local extinctions (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 91-93). The petition also states that individuals in larger colonies benefit from less time being devoted to predator detection. We concur that the majority of existing Utah prairie dog colonies are small, numbering fewer than 200 individuals (UDWR 2005). Plague is active across the landscape and results in colonies tending to increase in numbers for a period of years, decline to very small numbers following a plague event, and then increasing again (see further plague discussion under Factor C). However, the current number of active colonies, and the number of Utah prairie dogs counted in the spring of 2005 (5,381 animals) (UDWR 2005), continues to be within the range of variation seen since counts began in 1976; therefore, we do not concur that small colony size is endangering the species. In summary, we have determined that the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information to support the assertion that small colony size and fragmentation may be a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. Summary of Factor A We have determined that the information in the petition and available in our files does not constitute substantial scientific or commercial information that present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat is a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. Many of the claims cited by the Petitioners constitute small, localized impacts on specific Utah prairie dog colonies. We recognize the potential for future private land development due to the large percentage of private lands within the West Desert Recovery Area, and will continue to monitor the status of Utah prairie dog colonies in that area closely. We also will continue our efforts to conserve prairie dog habitat on private lands and to develop new colonies on public lands. We acknowledge that it is likely that some livestock grazing regimes, particularly under drought conditions, may adversely affect Utah prairie dogs. We will continue the process of research and monitoring of Utah prairie dog habitat suitability and grazing management practices, and ultimately we will revise the Recovery Plan to incorporate vegetation guidelines and grazing management recommendations to benefit the species. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition states that illegal shooting of Utah prairie dogs still occurs and that shooting can negatively affect prairie dogs through population reduction, decreased colony expansion rates, and changes in behavior (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 94-98). Because the Utah prairie dog is already a listed species, shooting, except as provided for by the 4(d) special rule, which is codified at 50 CFR 17.40(g), is prohibited by the Act. However, we acknowledge that isolated instances of shooting likely occur, and that it is not feasible for UDWR and Federal land management agencies to patrol all colony locations on a routine basis. No information is available in the petition or in our files to indicate that more than isolated incidences of shooting occur within Utah prairie dog colonies, or that shooting may pose a significant threat to the species on a range-wide basis. Summary of Factor B Neither the petition nor information readily available in our files constitute substantial scientific or commercial information that overutilization is a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. C. Disease or Predation The Petitioners did not state that predation is a threat to the Utah prairie dog. The Petitioners did state that sylvatic plague ( *Yersinia pestis* ), an exotic bacterial disease, is a significant threat to the extent that it might prevent recovery of Utah prairie dogs, even if all other threat factors were removed. The petition states that plague is a threat to prairie dogs, given their lack of natural immunity to the bacterium. The cyclical nature of plague means that it can return to affect the same colony; therefore recovery from a plague event can be a slow process (Rosmarino 2003, p. 98). The Petitioners cite numerous instances of documented and suspected plague events occurring throughout Utah prairie dog range (Rosmarino 2003, p. 99). They also cite ongoing research in Utah prairie dog habitat on plague mitigation through the use of insecticides to kill the fleas that carry the plague bacterium (Rosmarino 2003, p. 100). The Petitioners take the view that as long as plague is present in the ecosystem, the Utah prairie dog may not reach recovery goals even if all other threat factors are removed (Rosmarino 2003, p. 100). We acknowledge that plague exists throughout the Utah prairie dog's range, that individual Utah prairie dog colonies are known to have been affected by the disease, and that there is currently no mechanism available to prevent periodic plague events from reoccurring. Plague is an Old World (European origin) disease that was first recorded in North America in humans in 1899, and in Utah prairie dogs in Garfield County in 1936 (Fitzgerald 1993, p. 50). However, plague antibody titers have been found in a few Utah prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, p. 1) and white-tailed prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, p. 1; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 896), indicating that some individuals survive after exposure to plague. Information in our files indicates that the literature is inconclusive regarding whether isolation of a colony or a colony's density affects the number and frequency of plague outbreaks. Lomolino et al. (2003, p. 118) and others (Cully and Williams 2001, p. 901; Miller et al. 1993, pp. 89-90) suggest that isolation and fragmentation may provide some protection to prairie dogs from sylvatic plague by lessening the likelihood of disease transmission. White-tailed and Utah prairie dog colonies are less dense and more widely dispersed than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie dog colonies, which may slow plague transmission rates (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 901). Biggins' (2003b, p. 5) data are consistent with the hypothesis that white-tailed prairie dogs are predisposed to regroup when their numbers become depleted, improving stability in density (at the cost of stability in area occupied). Biggins (2003b, p. 6) states that if transmission rates for *Yersinia pestis* are at least partly dependent on host density, prairie dog populations on good quality sites may undergo both larger declines and more rapid recoveries than those on poor sites. Partial or complete recovery following population reductions due to plague have been reported for both white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Biggins and Kosoy 2001, p. 23). Hibernation by Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs may reduce or delay plague transmission among individual animals (Barnes 1993, p. 34). The Petitioners cite ongoing research into the efficacy of insecticides to protect Utah prairie dog colonies from plague. Results of this study to date have been equivocal (Biggins 2003b, p. 8). The study was not able to determine a difference in the number of arthropod species on plots dusted with deltamethrin verses non-dusted plots. However, Biggins (2003b, p. 8) concludes that dusting Utah prairie dog burrows once a year with 4 grams (0.14 ounce) of Delta Dust (brand name of deltamethrin) does reduce the number of fleas species that are potential plague hosts. The recovery team has begun initial efforts to dust what are considered large priority colonies, including Johnson Bench, East Creek Canyon, and Tom Best Spring, in an effort to prevent plague outbreaks. These efforts successfully stopped an outbreak on the conservation bank property in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area known as The Tanks. Given the dynamics of the Utah prairie dog's behavior (such as hibernation), migration patterns, and geographical patterns of colony distribution, we are currently unable to determine whether there is an optimum size, density, and distribution of colonies that would make them less susceptible to periodic plague events. We also cannot determine whether small colony size and isolation provide some measure of protection from plague. Climatic factors may feed into plague cycling. Parmenter et al. (1999, p. 816) suggest a general linkage between cases of human plague (generally contracted by association with wild animals carrying fleas with the plague bacterium) and precipitation, particularly in the winter-spring period. They hypothesize that increased winter-spring precipitation results in an increase in food resources for animal species, which subsequently have greater reproductive success, leading to increased numbers of potential plague hosts (Parmenter et al. 1999, p. 818). Summary of Factor C We recognize that plague has been, and will continue to be, a major mortality factor in specific colonies, and across the range of Utah prairie dogs. The impact that plague has had on the overall status of the species, or its potential for recovery, is unclear. It is impossible to separate the impacts of plague from other factors that affect Utah prairie dogs across their range, including drought, habitat conditions, and disturbance by various human activities. We will continue to support research on the impacts of plague on Utah prairie dog persistence, and on ways to reduce these impacts. There was no information provided in the petition, or available in our files, that shows that the effects of disease are becoming more severe or widespread, to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The Petitioners state that Federal regulatory mechanisms, including efforts undertaken by the Service under the Act, and the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, and National Park Service in their land management plans, are inadequate to protect the Utah prairie dog. The Petitioners state that even though the Utah prairie dog is currently listed as threatened under the Act, adequate regulatory mechanisms do not exist to ensure its survival or recovery. Specifically, they cite the downlisting of the species in 1984 (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 100-103); implementation of the 4(d) rule and faulty assumptions about the number of prairie dogs that could be taken annually (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 104-108); a flawed Recovery Plan (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 108-114), and lack of adequate personnel and resources from the affected agencies to fully implement it (Rosmarino 2003, p. 147); failure of the ICS to adequately consider effects to the species from threats such as plague and livestock grazing (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 115-119); and Federal land management agency (USFS and BLM) policies that facilitate habitat loss and degradation as described under Factor A (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 119-139). They also cite U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—Wildlife Services' lethal Utah prairie dog control, and grasshopper and Mormon cricket control within Utah prairie dog range, as harmful to the species (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 140-145), and state that the Environmental Protection Agency's labeling for toxicants and fumigants is not fully protective of Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, p. 144). The petition further discusses the lack of recovery efforts on private lands, including implementation of HCPs pursuant to section 10 of the Act. The Petitioners particularly cite failure to adequately address cumulative impacts of incidental take on prairie dogs in the West Desert Recovery Area, and failure to provide adequate mitigation, which has resulted in considerable take of Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 147-161). Although overall numbers of Utah prairie dogs have not increased substantially since downlisting in 1984, the species' population is considered to be stable on a range-wide basis. In 2005, the count was 5,381 animals range-wide, and in 1984 it was 2,522 animals; counts ranged from 2,522 to 7,527 during that 22-year period (UDWR 2005). We acknowledge that the translocation program to move animals defined as “surplus” under the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)) and the recovery goal of developing new Utah prairie dog colonies on public lands, have not been as successful as predicted. The 4(d) special rule allows a maximum of 6,000 Utah prairie dogs to be taken annually; however, the actual number that are permitted to be taken varies on an annual basis and depends on the population surveys for that year. During their annual surveys, UDWR makes counts of Utah prairie dogs on individual colonies throughout the range of the species. When a private landowner requests a control permit for a particular colony, UDWR issues a permit for take of no more than 10 percent of the number of animals counted in that colony that year. During the period of 1985-2004, the permitted level of take was never higher than 3,781, and the actual reported take did not exceed 1,760 (UDWR 2003). We are taking steps to improve the success of the translocation program through development of vegetation guidelines (discussed under Factor A) and new guidelines for Utah prairie dog translocation (see discussion under Factor E). Utah prairie dogs have not experienced significant progress toward recovery since the 1984 downlisting, but current numbers are within the range of historical population fluctuations, which indicates that extinction is not imminent. Efforts to revise the Recovery Plan are currently underway and will incorporate the best available information. The revised Recovery Plan is expected to be completed in 2007. For now, the goal of the interim strategy that was developed in 1994 is to advance information and strategies necessary to effectively modify recovery goals. Research on habitat needs and successful translocation is ongoing. Based on this research, we updated the vegetation and translocation guidelines. Cooperators in the ICS and Recovery Plan revision include all of the affected Federal land management agencies, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), State and Federal wildlife management agencies, Utah State University, Utah Farm Bureau, and Environmental Defense. All BLM land use plans incorporate the existing Recovery Plan “and other pertinent documents pertaining to recovery.” BLM's Cedar City Field Office is monitoring vegetation on Utah prairie dog sites to determine compliance with the vegetation guidelines. The National Park Service has implemented habitat restoration projects through burning and seeding and has hosted Utah prairie dog research efforts on its property for the last 10 years. USFS is revising the Dixie National Forest Plan to incorporate the Utah prairie dog Recovery Plan. USFS also has identified and prepared two translocation sites, dusted several key colonies at risk of plague exposure in the Paunsaugant Recovery Area, and is initiating habitat improvement projects to benefit Utah prairie dogs in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area. All agencies are making a concerted effort to implement the ICS and use new research data to improve the conservation and recovery of Utah prairie dogs throughout their range. Species recovery is often a difficult and long-term process, particularly for a species such as the Utah prairie dog that had been in decline for nearly a century prior to its listing (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1) and that is adversely affected by numerous interacting factors. We believe we are moving in a positive direction with implementation of the ICS and revision of the Recovery Plan, but we need to continue to evaluate the status of the species and factors affecting its recovery over the long-term. APHIS-Wildlife Services received one permit to control Utah prairie dogs on private agricultural land adjacent to a parcel of land protected under a conservation easement. However, the need for control never materialized, and control was never carried out. We have completed a programmatic consultation with APHIS for grasshopper and Mormon cricket control under section 7 of the Act, to ensure that control actions will not have adverse effects on listed species, including Utah prairie dogs. The consultation contains required conservation measures to benefit the species, including a 1.6-km (1.0-mi) buffer zone around occupied Utah prairie dog habitat (USDA 2005, p. 12). The State of Utah, through an agreement with the Service, manages Utah prairie dogs by conducting annual surveys, issuing permits to private landowners under the 4(d) special rule, and trapping and translocation of animals from private to public lands. However, the State of Utah does not control the lands occupied by Utah prairie dogs and has no authority to implement land management changes. The State is working cooperatively with the Service and Federal land management agencies to determine ways to improve habitat conditions on public lands and to revise the Recovery Plan. We have taken steps to conserve prairie dogs on private lands, including issuance of three Safe Harbor Agreements
(SHAs)covering 97 ha (240 ac) of occupied and unoccupied habitat within the Paunsaugunt and Awapa Plateau Recovery Areas (Service 2005a, 2005b, 2006b). These SHAs improve Utah prairie dog habitat by increasing plant diversity and providing protection for Utah prairie dogs for up to 15 years. We are currently processing three more SHAs
(cite)and one umbrella safe harbor agreement to be held by NRCS (cite), with an unlimited potential to enroll private lands within all three recovery areas. In 2004, we approved a 304-ha (750-ac) conservation bank on private land that is protected in perpetuity within the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area (Service 2005c). A conservation bank in the West Desert Recovery Area has been initiated and will protect private land within Iron County. The petition discusses several small and large-scale (county-wide) HCPs, most of which were issued in the 1990s. Currently, the Iron County HCP (the only county-wide HCP) (Service 1998) is in the process of being revised and will include the protection of private lands with Utah prairie dogs to offset impacts from development elsewhere. A recently finalized HCP protects 123 ha (303 ac) of habitat (occupied and unoccupied) in exchange for 7 ha (18 ac) of low-quality occupied habitat (Service 2007)). The Garfield County HCP was never finalized. Summary of Factor D We agree that Utah prairie dog recovery has been slow, but we conclude that actions taken since 1994, including research, development of new guidance documents, implementation of the ICS on Federal lands occupied by prairie dogs, and the revision of the Recovery Plan to include the conservation of prairie dog habitat on private lands, will improve the species' status over the long-term. Neither the petition nor the available information in our files indicates that lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to Utah prairie dogs to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species The Petitioners state that rodent control efforts, the Utah prairie dog translocation program, and drought present significant threats to Utah prairie dogs. The petition cites legal take under the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)), and ongoing illegal poisoning and shooting as endangering the species (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 161-162). In particular, the Petitioners point out that legal take of Utah prairie dogs under the 4(d) special rule has resulted in control of 14,002 prairie dogs (to the date of the petition) and suggest that take levels and population fluctuations from year to year may be contributing to population declines (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 162-163). The petition alleges that any illegal poisoning that occurs increases the magnitude of permitted take (Rosmarino 2003, p. 165). The petition calls the translocation program a failure, stating that translocations have not resulted in an increase of Utah prairie dog populations on public lands, and have resulted in a loss of animals on private lands (Rosmarino 2003, p. 166). The petition points out that many translocation sites do not meet ICS vegetation guidelines, and that Utah prairie dogs translocated to the Adams Well site have lost weight, thus making them less likely to survive through winter (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 170-184). The petition states that, although drought is a naturally occurring phenomenon, continuing livestock grazing during drought conditions exacerbates the effects of drought on Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, p. 185). Legal take occurring in compliance with the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)) was discussed under Factor D. As stated under Factor B, we do not have any information to indicate that illegal shooting occurs in other than isolated instances. We believe the same to be true of illegal poisoning, and no information exists in our files or in the petition indicating otherwise. The relationship of drought and livestock grazing regimes on Utah prairie dog habitat is discussed under Factor A. We agree that past translocation efforts have not always been successful. We have adapted our techniques and vegetation guidelines to address the likely causes preventing success of past efforts. Thirteen new complexes have been established on Federal lands within the West Desert Recovery Area through translocation efforts. We are improving translocation success through development and use of the ICS vegetation guidelines, habitat research (as discussed under Factor A), monitoring survival of translocated animals, and incorporating better methods to improve survival. We will continue to monitor these efforts and update our methods as necessary. Even under optimum circumstances, survival of translocated prairie dogs of various species is low (less than 40 percent) (Truett et al. 2001, p. 864). We have developed new recommended translocation procedures (Procedures) for the Utah Prairie Dog (Service 2006, 18 pp.). The Procedures emphasize actions to increase success rates and to provide consistency across recovery areas and land management agencies. The Procedures discuss site selection and preparation, translocation site preparation, trapping, handling, transport, release, and monitoring and management of translocated populations. Consistent use of these Procedures should increase future survival of translocated animals. Summary of Factor E We have determined that information in the petition and available in our files does not indicate that legal and illegal take, including the translocation program implemented under the existing Recovery Plan, is a threat to Utah prairie dogs to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. We will continue to work with all landowners to implement the Procedures and to monitor their effectiveness. The Procedures will become part of any future revisions to the Recovery Plan. Finding We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the petition, and evaluated it in relation to other pertinent information in our files. We find that substantial scientific or commercial information has not been presented by the Petitioners indicating that reclassification of Utah prairie dog ( *Cynomys parvidens* ) from threatened to endangered may be warranted. Because the species is already listed as threatened under the Act, it is already subject to, and receives protection from, the regulatory mechanisms of the Act. The petition did not identify or present substantial new information indicating that the level of threats to the species has changed significantly since its reclassification to threatened in 1984. The current number of active colonies, and the number of Utah prairie dogs counted in the spring of 2005 (5,381) (UDWR 2005), continues to be within the range of variation seen since counts were implemented in 1976, which further supports the assertion that threats have not increased significantly. Since implementation of the ICS in 1997, the Service and its Federal and State recovery team partners have taken substantial steps to improve the survival of translocated Utah prairie dogs through new vegetation guidelines, habitat improvements at translocation sites on Federal lands, and new translocation guidelines. New conservation tools, including SHAs, mitigation banks, and HCPs with provisions for protection of private lands, are being implemented. Research is being carried out on the efficacy of dusting Utah prairie dog colonies with dimethrin to control plague. Critical colonies have been identified and successfully protected through this methodology. New information gained since the implementation of the ICS, including ongoing research and monitoring results from occupied colonies on Federal lands, will be used in the revision of the Recovery Plan. This may include revision of the recovery goals for the species if the new information supports it. Although we will not be commencing a status review in response to this petition, 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 Utah prairie dog, you may submit your information or materials to the Utah Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES ). 5-Year Review Although we will not conduct a status review in response to the petition, we are initiating a 5-year review of the Utah prairie dog to comply with section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on this 5-year review, we will determine whether or not the Utah prairie dog should be removed from the list ( *i.e.* , delisted) or otherwise reclassified. Delisting or reclassifying a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial information available, and we will only consider delisting a species if such information substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:
(1)The species is considered extinct;
(2)the species is considered to be recovered; or
(3)the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing those species currently under review. This notice announces our intention to prepare a 5-year review of the Utah prairie dog and opens a 60-day comment period (see DATES ). We encourage interested parties to provide information concerning the Utah prairie dog to the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES ). Public Comments Solicited At this time, we are opening a 60-day comment period (see DATES ) to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the Utah prairie dog for our 5-year review. We will base our 5-year review on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including the studies cited in this notice and information received during the public comment period. Information regarding the following topics would be particularly useful:
(1)Species biology, including but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy, including any evaluations or reviews of the studies cited in this notice;
(2)habitat conditions, including but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;
(3)conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(4)threat status and trends; and
(5)other new information or data. When we complete our 5-year review, our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their 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 organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII or Microsoft Word file. Also, please include “Attn: Utah prairie dog” along with your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods provided in the ADDRESSES section. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Utah Ecological Services Field Office. Author The authors of this document are Susan Linner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, and Elise Boeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah 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 9, 2007. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-2834 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AT37 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove the Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel ( Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus ) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the public comment period on the proposed rule to remove the Virginia northern flying squirrel ( *Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus* ), more commonly known as the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination. DATES: The public comment period for the proposed rule published at 71 FR 75924, December 19, 2006, is extended from February 20, 2007, to April 23, 2007. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on the proposal. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed delisting by any one of several methods: 1. You may submit written comments and information to the Assistant Chief, Division of Endangered and Threatened Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. 2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Northeast Regional Office, at the above address. 3. You may fax your comments to 413-253-8482. 4. You may use the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Northeast Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Lynch at our Northeast Regional Office ( *telephone:* 413-253-8628) or the Field Office Supervisor, West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241 ( *telephone:* 304-636-6586). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 19, 2006, the Service published a proposed rule (71 FR 75924), under the authority of the Act, to remove the WVNFS from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which was to end on February 20, 2007, on that action. We have received requests to extend the comment period in order to allow additional time for the public to review the data and provide comments. To ensure that the public has sufficient opportunity to review the available scientific and commercial data, we are extending the comment period for an additional 60 days. Comments on the proposed delisting rule will be accepted through April 23, 2007. Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Public Comments Solicited We intend for any final action resulting from the proposal to be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we solicit data, comments, or suggestions from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, Tribes, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1)Biological, commercial, trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the WVNFS;
(2)additional information on the range, distribution, and population size of the WVNFS and its habitat;
(3)the location of any additional populations of the WVNFS; and
(4)data on population trends. 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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.” Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their name and/or home address, 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 or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and other information received, as well as supporting documentation used to write this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Northeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). In making a final decision on the proposal, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from the proposal. Dated: February 15, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 07-787 Filed 2-16-07; 11:48 am]
Connectionstraces to 31
Traces to 31 documents
U.S. Code
24 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 97
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 42 CFR 71.56
  • 21 CFR 1240.63
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 51
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 70
  • 43 CFR 2930
  • Pub. L. 104-134
  • 595 F.2d 5
  • 16 USC 4601-6a
  • 36 CFR 71
  • 40 CFR 1508.4
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 33 CFR 334
  • 40 Stat. 266
  • 40 Stat. 892
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 17.40(g)
  • 50 CFR 424.21
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 97.20
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 51.350
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
F. App'x595 F.2d 5
Cite14 CFR 97
Cite1 CFR 51
Cites 55 · 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.