Notices. Final rule

43,461 words·~198 min read·/register/2008/03/11/08-1000

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070816465-8008-02] RIN 0648-AV96 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Bycatch Management AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to repeal regulations providing for a groundfish vessel incentive program

(VIP)that was designed to reduce the rate at which Pacific halibut and red king crab are taken as incidental catch in Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries. The VIP has not performed as intended because of the costs associated with implementation and enforcement, the relatively small number of vessels covered by the regulation, and the implementation of more effective bycatch reduction programs. This action is necessary to reduce a regulatory burden on the industry and to reduce the administrative costs necessary to support a program no longer considered an effective means to reduce bycatch rates. DATES: Effective April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action are available on the Alaska Region Web site at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Printed copies can be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Muse, 907-586-7228, or *ben.muse@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. Fisheries off Alaska targeting groundfish incidentally catch other species. Some of these non-groundfish species are themselves the objects of valuable targeted fisheries and retention of these species is prohibited in the groundfish fishery. These prohibited species include Pacific halibut, Chinook and “other” salmon, several crab species, and herring. Measures to restrict the catch of these species have been incorporated into the FMPs and regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Among these measures are prohibited species catch

(PSC)limits that restrict the amount of a prohibited species that may be taken incidentally in a groundfish fishery. Groundfish fisheries are routinely closed in all or part of a management area when a PSC limit is reached. These closures are expensive for industry because they mean that valuable groundfish are left unharvested. Section 3.6.4 of the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)FMP authorizes regulations to reduce halibut bycatch rates in fisheries subject to halibut PSC limits to increase the opportunity to fish groundfish total allowable catches

(TACs)before established PSC limits are reached. Section 3.6.4 of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island

(BSAI)FMP allows for implementation of regulatory measures to provide incentives to individual vessels to reduce bycatch rates of prohibited species for which PSC limits are established. While the GOA provisions are limited to halibut, the BSAI provisions authorize the creation of incentive programs to reduce the bycatch of red king crab, as well as halibut. Vessel Incentive Program Regulations at 50 CFR 679.21(f) implement a vessel incentive program

(VIP)under the authority of the FMPs. The program creates incentives for individual groundfish trawl operators to reduce their incidental catch rates of halibut and red king crab by imposing penalties on operators whose incidental catch rates exceed specified standards. Under the program, the Alaska Regional Administrator is required to publish fishery-specific bycatch rate standards for halibut in the GOA and BSAI, and red king crab in the BSAI two times a year. Observer data on the catch composition of harvests in subject fisheries is statistically analyzed. Vessels that exceed the published bycatch rate standards are subject to prosecution. The program became effective in mid-1991. The VIP imposes potential costs on fishermen with high observed prohibited species bycatch rates. This has created an incentive for fishermen to reduce these observed rates. They can do this by changing the patterns of their fishing behavior. They can also do this by manipulating the observer reported rates. Anecdotal evidence from knowledgeable persons in the Observer Program and NOAA Enforcement suggests that the incidence of these activities may be high. Pre-sorting may affect the accuracy of observer reports of halibut and red king crab bycatch. Effective enforcement of the VIP imposes significant costs on the Observer Program and NMFS. Resources for the management of the program and enforcement of the rule have to be taken from other high priority management and enforcement responsibilities. It also is not clear from experience with the program that it has had, or will have, a significant deterrent effect or has led to the harvest of significant additional amounts of target groundfish. Furthermore, the establishment of fishery cooperatives and the stringent catch monitoring provisions implemented by NMFS to monitor cooperative-specific allocations of groundfish and prohibited species, including halibut and red king crab, are additional means to reduce bycatch. Cooperative members receive a joint allocation of PSC, and this creates incentives and capabilities for cooperatives to control individual operation PSC bycatch rates to maximize the value of the cooperative's PSC allocation. In June 2003 the Council initiated an amendment to repeal the VIP given concerns about its effectiveness, its potential to absorb resources that could be utilized by other, important management and enforcement functions, and the incentive created to pre-sort bycatch, as well as developments in other bycatch reduction programs that have occurred since 1991. In October 2003, the Council reviewed a NMFS discussion paper and made a preliminary identification of alternatives for analysis. In December 2003 the Council reiterated its approval of the alternatives it had adopted in October and scheduled initial review of the draft for its April 2004 meeting. In October 2006 the Council initially reviewed the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) and

(a)identified repeal of the VIP regulations, without modification of authorizing language in the FMPs, as its preferred alternative;

(b)approved release of the EA/RIR/IRFA for public review; and

(c)scheduled final action for its December 2006 meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. In December 2006 the Council took final action, adopting the preferred alternative it had identified in October 2006. The proposed rule for the repeal of the VIP regulations was published in the **Federal Register** on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67692). The public comment period ended on December 31, 2007. No comments were received. Final Regulatory Changes This action repeals 50 CFR 679.21(f), which imposes the requirement for compliance with the VIP and describes procedures for assignment of vessels to fisheries, notification of bycatch rate standards, analysis of the factors on which bycatch rate standards are to be based, public comment, publication of notification in the **Federal Register** , use of observer data to calculate rates, calculation of individual vessel rates, and determining whether a vessel is in compliance with bycatch rate standards. This action also would repeal 50 CFR 679.7(a)(5) which specifically prohibits vessels from exceeding a bycatch rate standard specified under 50 CFR 679.21(f). This action does not modify the BSAI and GOA FMPs, which contain language authorizing the Council to develop a new VIP if it chooses. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.50(k) authorize NMFS Alaska Region to publish individual vessel bycatch rates for specified prohibited species. Nothing in this final rule would affect this authority, and the Alaska Region will continue to publish these bycatch rates on its Web site. Changes from Proposed Rule This rule does not change the authority citation for 50 CFR part 679. The proposed rule inadvertently said that the authority citation was revised, although it did not identify any revisions. In the final rule, the phrase “is revised” has been replaced with the words “continues to read.” Classification The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared a FRFA as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the analysis follows. NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)to accompany the proposed rule. The proposed rule described the IRFA and explained to the public how to obtain a copy. No comments were received on the IRFA or the economic effects of the proposed rule. In 2005 a total of 78 catcher vessels and 3 catcher/processor vessels reported gross annual receipts of $4.0 million or less from fishing groundfish and other species using trawl gear in the GOA, and can therefore be characterized as small entities under the Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards. Between 2002 and 2005, the total number of trawl vessels generating $4.0 million or less in revenue has ranged from a low of 81 in 2004 and 2005, to a high of 112 in 2002. Average gross revenue (from all fishing sources in Alaska) generated by these vessels was approximately $840,000 in 2005, which was an increase from $730,000 in 2004 and $590,000 in 2002. Thus, the final alternatives may directly regulate between 81 and 112 small entities in the GOA. There has been a general decline in the number of vessels that qualify as small entities in the GOA, so the most recent

(2005)estimate of 81 vessels was used for the analysis. This estimate is likely an overestimate of the number of small entities actually directly regulated by this action since it does not account for affiliations among entities. Data necessary to fully assess such linkages are not currently available. The BSAI has a larger number of trawl vessels that are considered small entities than the GOA. In 2005, 99 catcher vessels and 2 catcher/processor vessels reported gross annual receipts of $4.0 million or less, from all their fishery production off Alaska. Between 2002 and 2005, the total number of vessels categorized as small entities in these BSAI fisheries has ranged from a low of 101 in 2005 to a high of 123 in 2002. Between 2002 and 2003, the average gross revenue (from all Alaskan fishing sources) generated by these vessels has ranged from a low of $1.20 million in 2003 to a high of $1.60 million in 2005. Thus, the final alternatives may directly regulate, on average, 113 trawl vessels that are considered small entities. This estimate is likely an overestimate of the number of small entities actually directly regulated by this action, since it does not account for affiliations among entities. As is the case for the GOA, data necessary to fully assess such linkages are not currently available. Two alternatives to the preferred one were examined. Alternative 1 was the “No Action” alternative. Under this alternative the VIP would have remained in place. This alternative would have involved a renewed commitment to investigating violations, and prosecuting violators. As noted earlier, the Council and NMFS have had concerns about the effectiveness of this program and its potential to mislead estimates of PSC incidental catches. Moreover, cooperatives offer new methods to control PSC bycatch rates. Alternative 2 would retain the program, but would reduce the frequency with which PSC rates are published. The analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2 is the same, except that Alternative 2 has somewhat lower administrative costs because PSC rates are not published as often. Alternative 3, which would repeal the VIP provisions of regulation, was chosen as the final alternative because it was the only alternative that meets the objectives of this action. Alternatives 1 and 2 would renew the VIP. If the VIP were effective, it could lead to reduced bycatch rates and the harvest of larger proportions of TACs in certain trawl fisheries. However, as noted, there are important concerns about the program's potential for successful reduction in bycatch rates. As a practical matter, 100 percent observer coverage is required to make a case against a trawl operator for exceeding the PSC rate. This level of observer coverage is available only on trawl vessels greater than or equal to 125 feet LOA. Enforcement efforts would be principally directed against this class of vessels. Small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), could exist among both vessels greater than or equal to 125 feet length overall (LOA), and less than or equal to 125 feet LOA. Alternative 3 would best meet the objective of this action and avoid the potential costs that might be imposed on directly regulated small entities by enforcement activities. This regulation would not impose new recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the regulated small entities. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as ''small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to this final rule serves as the small entity compliance guide. This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following Web site: *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 6, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as follows: PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* ; 1801 *et seq.* ; 3631 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 108-447. § 679.7 [Amended] 2. In § 679.7, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(5). § 679.21 [Amended] 3. In § 679.21, remove and reserve paragraph (f). [FR Doc. E8-4810 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 48 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0265; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-349-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the main landing gear

(MLG)main fittings, and replacement with new or serviceable MLG main fittings if necessary. The existing AD also currently requires servicing the MLG shock struts; inspecting the MLG shock struts for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and oil leakage; and performing corrective actions, if necessary. This proposed AD would require replacement of the MLG main fittings with new improved MLG main fittings, which would terminate the repetitive inspections of the MLG main fittings and inspection and servicing of the MLG shock struts. This proposed AD results from premature failure of the MLG main fittings. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the MLG main fittings, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7324; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0265; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-349-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://www.regulations.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 On May 20, 2003, we issued AD 2003-11-11, amendment 39-13170 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003), for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes. That AD requires repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the main landing gear

(MLG)main fittings, and replacement with new or serviceable MLG main fittings if necessary. That AD also requires servicing the MLG shock struts; inspecting the MLG shock struts for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and oil leakage; and performing corrective actions, if necessary. That AD resulted from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the MLG main fittings, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2003-11-11, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that it has certified a new design of the MLG main fitting. Installation of the new improved MLG main fittings would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections of the MLG main fittings and the inspection and servicing of the MLG shock struts. The preamble to AD 2003-11-11 explains that we consider the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Other Related Rulemaking On December 21, 2006, we issued AD 2007-01-07, amendment 39-14879 (72 FR 1430, January 12, 2007), for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 7003 through 7067 inclusive and S/Ns 7069 through 8999 inclusive, equipped with MLG main fittings having part number (P/N) 601R85001-3 or -4 (Messier-Dowty P/N 17064-101, -102, -103, or -104). That AD requires repetitive inspections for cracks, sealant damage, and corrosion of the main fittings of the MLG, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires replacement of both main fittings of the MLG with new main fittings, which terminates the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from a report of a cracked main fitting of the MLG. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the main fitting of the MLG and consequent failure of the main fitting, which could result in the collapse of the MLG. For certain airplanes, accomplishing the replacements in accordance with paragraph

(l)of AD 2007-01-07 is considered acceptable for compliance with the replacement specified in this proposed AD. On January 29, 2007, we issued AD 2007-03-19, amendment 39-14930 (72 FR 5925, February 8, 2007), for certain Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes having S/Ns 7003 and subsequent, equipped with MLG main fittings having P/N 601R85001-81 and -82 (Messier-Dowty P/N 17064-105 and -106). That AD requires repetitive detailed and eddy current inspections of the main fittings of the MLGs to detect discrepancies, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires servicing the shock strut of the MLGs; inspecting the shock strut of the MLGs for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and oil leakage; and servicing any discrepant strut. That AD also requires installing a new improved MLG main fitting, which terminates the repetitive inspections and servicing requirements. That AD resulted from stress analyses that showed certain main fittings of the MLG are susceptible to premature cracking, starting in the radius of the upper lug. We issued that AD to detect and correct premature cracking of the main fittings of the MLGs, which could result in failure of the fittings and consequent collapse of the MLGs during landing. The requirements of AD 2007-03-19 do not affect the actions specified in this proposed AD, since AD 2007-03-19 is applicable to airplanes equipped with different MLG main fittings. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, Revision B, dated July 14, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the MLG main fittings with new improved MLG main fittings having P/Ns 601R85001-83 and -84 (Messier-Dowty P/Ns 17064-107 and -108). Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-32R3, dated September 21, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-11-11 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Canadian Airworthiness Directive.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Canadian Airworthiness Directive Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-32R3 specifies replacing the MLG main fittings by June 30, 2007, which is a compliance time of about 21 months after issuance of Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-32R3. This proposed AD, however, would require replacing the MLG main fittings within 6 months after the effective date of the AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the replacements. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 6 months for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with TCCA. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-11-11. Since AD 2003-11-11 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2003-11-11 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph

(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph

(b)Paragraph (g). Paragraph

(c)Paragraph (h). Paragraph

(d)Paragraph (i). Paragraph

(e)Paragraph (j). Paragraph

(f)Paragraph (k). Paragraph

(g)Paragraph (l). Paragraph

(h)Paragraph (m). Paragraph

(i)Paragraph (n). Paragraph

(j)Paragraph (o). Paragraph

(k)Paragraph (p). Paragraph

(l)Paragraph (q). Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Due to other existing ADs, the proposed actions have already been accomplished on the majority of affected U.S.-registered airplanes; therefore, the estimated costs will be significantly less than those specified in the table. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Detailed inspection (required by AD 2003-11-11) 1 None $80, per inspection cycle 618 $49,440, per inspection cycle Eddy current inspection (required by AD 2003-11-11) 1 None $80, per inspection cycle 618 $49,440, per inspection cycle Fluorescent penetrant inspection (required by AD 2003-11-11) 1 None $80, per inspection cycle 618 $49,440, per inspection cycle Inspection and servicing of shock struts (required by AD 2003-11-11) 2 None $160, per inspection cycle 618 $98,880, per inspection cycle Replacement (new proposed action) 56 Up to $35,000 Up to $39,480 618 $24,398,640 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 have 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 that the 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. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. 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 Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13170 (68 FR 31956, May 29, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0265; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-349-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 10, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-11-11. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; having serial numbers (S/Ns) 7003 and subsequent, equipped with main landing gear

(MLG)main fittings having part numbers (P/Ns) 601R85001-3 and -4 (Messier-Dowty P/Ns 17064-101, -102, -103, and -104). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from premature failure of the MLG main fittings. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the MLG main fittings, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Note 1: Where there are differences between the referenced service bulletin and the AD, the AD prevails. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-11-11 Service Bulletin References

(f)Accomplishment of the inspections and servicing, as applicable, specified in paragraphs (h), (l), (m), and

(n)of this AD, per Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, dated December 3, 1999; Revision ‘A,’ dated January 7, 2000; Revision ‘B,’ dated June 1, 2000; Revision ‘C,’ dated October 26, 2000; or Revision ‘D,’ dated December 1, 2000; prior to June 13, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-11-11), is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (h), (l), (m), and

(n)of this AD.

(g)The term “service bulletin,” as used in paragraphs

(h)through

(q)of this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-079, Revision ‘E,’ dated September 12, 2002; including Appendix 1, Revision D, dated September 12, 2002; including Appendices 2 and 3, dated September 12, 2002. Initial Eddy Current Inspection

(h)Perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the MLG main fittings, per PART B of the service bulletin, at the earlier of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles on the MLG, or within 150 flight cycles after December 4, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-22-09, amendment 39-12488, which was superseded by AD 2003-11-11), whichever occurs later.

(2)Prior to the accumulation of 1,000 total flight cycles on the MLG, or within 150 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, whichever occurs later. Repetitive Eddy Current Inspections

(i)Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3), as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (i)(4) of this AD, per PART B of the service bulletin.

(1)For airplanes on which the eddy current inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD is accomplished after June 13, 2003: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

(2)For airplanes on which the repetitive eddy current inspection required by AD 2001-22-09 has been accomplished, and on which the repetitive intervals have been increased per paragraph

(j)of AD 2001-22-09 before June 13, 2003: Repeat the inspection within 500 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, or within 1,000 flight cycles since the last eddy current inspection, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

(3)For airplanes on which the repetitive eddy current inspection required by AD 2001-22-09 has been accomplished, and on which the repetitive intervals have not been increased per paragraph

(j)of AD 2001-22-09 before June 13, 2003: Repeat the eddy current inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

(4)For airplanes on which an eddy current inspection has been accomplished to confirm the detailed inspection required by paragraph

(o)of this AD: The next eddy current inspection must be done within 500 flight cycles following the last detailed inspection required by paragraph

(o)of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles. Corrective Actions

(j)If no cracking of the MLG main fittings is suspected during the next eddy current inspection required by paragraph

(h)or

(i)of this AD, but the paint has been removed: Prior to further flight, apply a new finish and install the harness clamp on the brake line with the bolt, washers, nut, and cotter pin; per PART B of the service bulletin.

(k)If any cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any eddy current inspection required by paragraph

(h)or

(i)of this AD: Prior to further flight, replace any cracked MLG main fitting with a new or serviceable part per the service bulletin. Servicing the Shock Struts

(l)Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total flight cycles on the MLG shock struts, or within 500 flight cycles after December 4, 2001, whichever occurs later: Service (Oil and Nitrogen) the left and right MLG shock struts per PART C (for airplanes on the ground) or PART D (for airplanes on jacks) of the service bulletin. Other Inspections

(m)Within 500 flight cycles after completing the actions required by paragraph

(l)of this AD: Inspect the MLG left and right shock struts for nitrogen pressure, visible chrome dimension, and oil leakage, in accordance with PART E of the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles. Corrective Actions for Certain Inspections

(n)If the chrome extension dimension of the shock strut pressure reading is outside the limits specified in the Airplane Maintenance Manual, Task 32-11-05-220-801, or any oil leakage is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(m)of this AD: Prior to further flight, service the MLG shock strut in accordance with PART C (for airplanes on the ground) or PART D (for airplanes on jacks) of the service bulletin. Detailed and Follow-On Inspections and Corrective Action

(o)Prior to the accumulation of 1,000 total flight cycles on the MLG, or within 250 flight cycles after June 13, 2003, whichever occurs later: Accomplish a detailed inspection of the MLG main fittings to detect signs of cracking (including linear paint cracks along the circumference of the main fitting tube, lack of paint (paint peeling) or other paint damage, lack of adhesion or paint bulging, and signs of corrosion), per PART A of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”

(p)If any linear paint crack along the circumference of the main fitting tube, lack of paint (paint peeling) or other paint damage, evidence of paint bulging due to lack of adhesion, or evidence of corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(o)of this AD: Prior to further flight, accomplish either an eddy current inspection to detect cracking, per PART B of the service bulletin; or a fluorescent penetrant inspection to detect cracking, per PART F of the service bulletin.

(1)If no cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(p)of this AD: Prior to further flight, repaint and/or repair/rework any paint damage per PART B of the service bulletin.

(2)If any cracking of the MLG main fittings is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(p)of this AD: Prior to further flight, replace any cracked MLG main fitting with a new or serviceable part per the service bulletin. Reporting Requirement

(q)Within 30 days after each inspection and servicing required by paragraphs (h), (i), (l), (m), (o), and

(p)of this AD, report all findings, positive or negative, to: Bombardier Aerospace, In-Service Engineering, fax number 514-855-8501. Although the service bulletin references completion of a “Service Bulletin Comment Sheet-Facsimile Reply Sheet,” this AD does not require that action. Information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. New Requirements of This AD Replacement

(r)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the MLG main fittings with new improved MLG main fittings, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, Revision B, dated July 14, 2005. Replacing the MLG main fittings terminates the requirements of paragraphs

(h)through

(q)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issues of the Service Bulletin

(s)Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-093, dated October 17, 2003; or Revision A, dated September 21, 2004; are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(r)of this AD. Credit for AD 2007-01-07

(t)For airplanes having S/Ns 7003 through 7067 inclusive and S/Ns 7069 through 8999 inclusive, equipped with MLG main fittings having P/N 601R85001-3 or -4 (Messier-Dowty P/N 17064-101, -102, -103, or -104): Accomplishing the replacements required by paragraph

(l)of AD 2007-01-07, amendment 39-14879, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(r)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (u)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)AMOCs issued to allow escalation of the repetitive intervals for the eddy current inspections from 500 to 1,000 flight cycles in accordance with paragraph

(e)of AD 2001-22-09 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD. Note 3: Information concerning the existence of AMOCs with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the New York ACO. Related Information

(v)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-32R3, dated September 21, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4769 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0268; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-050-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)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: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0268; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-050-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-07, dated January 25, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features during configuration changes such as modifications and repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Part 2, Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations” to introduce the required CDCCL. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, to Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would allow revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the maintenance requirements manual

(MRM)as an acceptable method of compliance if the CDCCL is part of a later approved MRM revision, or if the CDCCL is approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD. Differences Between This 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 297 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $23,760, or $80 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: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0268; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-050-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 10, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCL data specified in CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet (Bombardier) Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, to Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053. Note 1: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July 20, 2007, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)* : The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(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, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-35, dated December 21, 2007, and CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet (Bombardier) Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4770 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7304; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-06, dated January 15, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features during configuration changes such as modifications and repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations Items” of the Maintenance Requirements Manual of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TRs)ALI-55 and ALI-56, both dated April 19, 2006, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,”

(AWL)of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual PSM 1-84-7. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would allow revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the maintenance requirements manual

(MRM)as an acceptable method of compliance if the CDCCL is part of a later approved MRM revision, or if the CDCCL is approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD. Differences Between This 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 45 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,600, or $80 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: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 10, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs specified in Bombardier Temporary Revisions

(TRs)ALI-55, dated April 19, 2006; and ALI-56, dated April 19, 2006; to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual

(MRM)PSM 1-84-7. Note 1: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM PSM 1-84-7, Revision 4, dated October 30, 2003, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7304; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-06, dated January 15, 2008; and Bombardier TRs ALI-55 and ALI-56, both dated April 19, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4771 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0269; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-320-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacement of the power control relays in the P91 and P92 power distribution panels for the fuel boost and override pumps with new improved relays. This proposed AD would also require a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations

(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent pump housing burn-through due to electrical arcing, which could create a potential ignition source inside a fuel tank. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jen Pei, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6409; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0269; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-320-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://www.regulations.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 The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(GFI)feature. The GFI is designed to detect electrical faults and open the circuit prior to pump housing burn-through. Burn-through due to electrical arcing could create a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank. This condition in combination with flammable fuel vapors, if not corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1201, dated February 19, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the power control relays in the P91 and P92 power distribution panels for the fuel boost and override pumps with new, improved relays having a GFI feature. The Boeing service bulletin refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 1151932-24-61, dated November 10, 2006, as an additional source of service information for replacing the power control relays in the P91 power distribution panel. The Boeing service bulletin also refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 1151934-24-62, dated November 10, 2006, as an additional source of service information for replacing the power control relays in the P92 power distribution panels. We have also reviewed Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data

(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2007 R2 (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2007 of the MPD”). Subsection F, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS AWLs,” of Revision March 2007 of the MPD describes new airworthiness limitations

(AWLs)for fuel tank systems. Subsection F of Revision March 2007 of the MPD adds new fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-20, which is a repetitive operational check of the GFI for all alternating current fuel tank boost pumps to ensure continued functionality of the GFI circuit. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require the following actions: • Replacement of the power control relays in the P91 and P92 power distribution panels for the fuel boost and override pumps with new, improved relays having a GFI feature. • Revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20, which would require repetitive operational checks of the GFI for all alternating current fuel tank boost pumps to ensure continued functionality. This proposed AD would also allow accomplishing the revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the MPD as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 754 aircraft of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per product Fleet cost Installation of GFI relays 8 $11,010 $11,650 $8,784,100 Maintenance program revision 1 None $80 $60,320 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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance 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: **Boeing** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0269; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-320-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 25, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1201, dated February 19, 2007. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)according to paragraph

(i)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent pump housing burn-through due to electrical arcing, which could create a potential ignition source inside a fuel tank. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Replacement

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the power control relays in the P91 and P92 power distribution panels for the fuel boost and override pumps with new improved relays having a ground fault interrupter

(GFI)feature, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Note 2: The Boeing service bulletin refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 1151932-24-61 and Honeywell Service Bulletin 1151934-24-62, both dated November 10, 2006, as additional sources of service information for replacement of the power control relays in the P91 and P92 power distribution panels. Airworthiness Limitations

(AWLs)Revision

(g)Concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-20 of Subsection F of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data

(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision March 2007 R2 (hereafter referred to as “the MPD”). No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

(h)After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the inspections or intervals are part of a later revision of the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Jen Pei, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6409; fax

(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4773 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-03, dated January 3, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features during configuration changes such as modifications and repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations List” of the Maintenance Program Manuals of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TRs)to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations List”

(AWL)of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series Maintenance Program Manuals (MPMs). The TRs are listed in the following table titled “TRs to the DHC-8 MPMs.” TRs to the DHC-8 MPMs de Havilland TR TR date de Havilland MPM AWL-98 April 12, 2006 Dash 8 Series 100 MPM, Product Support Manual

(PSM)1-8-7. AWL 2-35 April 12, 2006 Dash 8 Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7. AWL 3-103 April 12, 2006 Dash 8 Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would allow revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the MPM as an acceptable method of compliance if the CDCCL is part of a later approved MPM revision, or if the CDCCL is approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD. Differences Between This 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 118 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,440, or $80 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: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 10, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCL data specified in the applicable temporary revision

(TR)to the applicable maintenance program manual (MPM). The TRs are listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Temporary Revisions Model de Havilland TR Maintenance program manual DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes AWL-98, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MPM, Product Support Manual

(PSM)1-8-7. DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202 airplanes AWL 2-35, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7. DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes AWL 3-103, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7. Note 1: The revisions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable maintenance program manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance program manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the applicable de Havilland Dash 8 Series MPM listed in Table 2 of this AD, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Table 2.—MPMs Model MPM DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MPM, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 17, dated April 19, 2005. DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7, Revision 5, dated August 15, 2001. DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7, Revision 16, dated August 15, 2001. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-03, dated January 3, 2008, and the TRs specified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4772 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 306 RIN #3084-AA45 Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment. SUMMARY: Section 205 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate biodiesel labeling requirements. In accordance with this directive, the FTC is publishing proposed amendments to its rule for “Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification, and Posting” (“Fuel Rating Rule” or “Rule”). The Commission is seeking comment on proposed changes to the Rule. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Proposed Rule for Biodiesel Labeling, Matter No. R811005” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159 (Annex F), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 1 Any request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, must accompany the comment and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on the following: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-biodiesel* and following the instructions on the web-based form. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-biodiesel* . You also may visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to read this proposed Rule, and may file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. Comments on any proposed filing, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements that are subject to paperwork burden review under the Paperwork Reduction Act should also be submitted to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to

(202)395-6974 because U.S. postal mail at OMB is subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an oral hearing for these amendments. Interested parties may request an opportunity to present views orally. If such a request is made, the Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** , stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to present oral views must submit, on or before March 24, 2008, a written comment that describes the issues on which the party wishes to speak. If there is no oral hearing, the Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome,

(202)326-2889, or Matthew Wilshire,

(202)326-2976, Attorneys, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 205 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA” or the “Act”) (Pub. L. 110-140) requires the Commission to promulgate biodiesel labeling requirements within 180 days of the law’s passage. The Act addresses three categories of biodiesel blends and sets out prescriptive requirements for labeling two of them. The Act also contains definitions for the terms “biomass-based diesel,” “biodiesel,” and “biomass-based diesel and biodiesel blends” (hereinafter referred to collectively as “biodiesel fuels”). In response to this statutory directive, the Commission is proposing amendments to the Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 306) to incorporate these Congressionally mandated labeling requirements. Under the amendments, the rating and certification requirements of the existing rule apply to biodiesel fuels. This Notice provides background on the Fuel Rating Rule, a short description of biodiesel, information about the new statutory requirements for biodiesel fuel labeling contained in EISA, and a detailed description of the proposed requirements for the labeling of biodiesel fuels at fuel pumps. I. The Fuel Rating Rule The Commission first promulgated the Fuel Rating Rule (then titled the “Octane Certification and Posting Rule”) in 1979 in accordance with the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”) (15 U.S.C. § 2821 *et seq.* ). 2 In response to amendments to the PMPA, the Commission expanded the scope of the Fuel Rating Rule in 1993 to cover liquid alternative fuels such as ethanol and liquefied natural gas (58 FR 41356 (Aug. 3, 1993)). The PMPA gives the Commission authority to designate methods for fuel rating, fuel certification, and posting for fuels at the point of sale. *See* 15 U.S.C. § 2822. The PMPA defines automotive fuel broadly to include “liquid fuel of a type distributed for use as a fuel in any motor vehicle.” The coverage of the Fuel Rating Rule is consistent with the PMPA and covers any alternative liquid fuel distributed for use in any motor vehicle including, but “not limited to,” methanol, denatured ethanol, liquefied natural gas, and coal-derived liquid fuels. 3 2 In accordance with section 203(d)(1) of the PMPA (15 U.S.C. § 2823(d)(1)), this proceeding is being conducted pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553), except that interested person are being afforded the opportunity to present oral, as well as written, data, views and arguments. 3 In 1993, the Commission explained that “[t]he Fuel Rating Rule . . . applies to all present and future alternative liquid automotive fuels.” 58 FR 41355, 41358 (Aug. 3, 1993). II. Biodiesel Fuels “Biodiesel,” as defined by EISA, is a diesel fuel produced by using alcohol to transform animal fat or vegetable oil into automotive fuel. Specifically, EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(c)) defines “biodiesel” to mean “the monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from plant or animal matter that meet:

(1)the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives under this section; 4 and

(2)the requirements of ASTM [American Society for Testing and Materials] standard D6751.” 5 Biodiesel serves as a substitute for diesel fuel for some diesel vehicles and is usually blended with diesel for sale at retail pumps. According to the Department of Energy, biodiesel in the U.S. is usually made from soybean oil or recycled restaurant grease. Estimates suggest that biodiesel sales increased from 15 million gallons in 2002 to 250 million gallons in 2006. 6 In addition to biodiesel, EISA contains requirements for “biomass-based diesel,” defined as a diesel fuel substitute produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources that meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency under 42 U.S.C. § 7545. 7 Finally, EISA (§ 205(c)(4)) defines “biomass-based diesel and biodiesel blends” to mean a “blend of ‘biomass-based diesel’ or ‘biodiesel’ fuel that is blended with petroleum based diesel fuel.” 4 Though EISA’s definition of “biodiesel” refers to the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives under “this section,” there are no such registration requirements in section 205 of EISA nor are there any in the FTC’s Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 306). Accordingly, we assume the phrase “this section” in EISA’s definition of “biodiesel” is intended to refer to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives (40 CFR Part 79 “Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives”) issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7545. Those requirements constitute EPA’s regulatory program for the registration of motor vehicle diesel fuel (including biodiesel), motor vehicle gasoline, and their additives. Therefore the definition of “biodiesel” in the proposed Rule references the requirements of 40 CFR Part 79. 5 ASTM D6751 is titled: “Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock

(B100)for Middle Distillate Fuels.” 6 *See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/renewable_diesel.html* (2002 estimate) and *http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Biodiesel_Sales_Graph.pdf* (2006 estimate). 7 EISA defines “biomass-based diesel” by referencing the definition of the term “biodiesel” provided in Section 312(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. § 13220(f)). The definition reads: “a diesel fuel substitute produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources that meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency under [42 U.S.C. § 7545],” and includes fuel derived from “(i) animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry wastes, and other waste materials; or

(ii)municipal solid waste and sludges and oils derived from wastewater and the treatment of wastewater.” 42 U.S.C. § 13220(f)(1)(A) and (B). Though the FTC has never specifically addressed fuel labeling requirements for biodiesel fuels, the broad authority under the PMPA allows the Commission to include those fuels under the rating, certification, and posting requirements of the Fuel Rating Rule. Given Congress’s specific directive in EISA to promulgate biodiesel fuel labeling requirements, we now are proposing to amend the Fuel Rating Rule to include biodiesel fuels in accordance with the directive of EISA. 8 8 The Fuel Rating Rule currently does not specify labeling requirements for petroleum-based diesel. *See* 58 FR 41356, 41368 (Aug. 3, 1993). We are not proposing such requirements for diesel fuel as part of this proceeding. III. EISA’s Directive EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(a)) states that “[e]ach retail diesel fuel pump shall be labeled in a manner that informs consumers of the percent of biomass-based diesel or biodiesel that is contained in the biomass-based diesel blend or biodiesel blend that is offered for sale, as determined by the Federal Trade Commission.” EISA also addresses three different categories of biodiesel fuel blends, requiring labels with specific wording on biodiesel fuel pumps for two of them. For fuel blends containing five percent or less biodiesel fuel that meet ASTM D975 (“Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils”), no specific label is required. 9 For fuel blends between five and no more than twenty percent, EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(b)(2)) requires the label to state that the fuel blend “contains biomass-based diesel or biodiesel in quantities between 5 percent and 20 percent.” For fuel blends that contain more than twenty percent biodiesel or biomass-based diesel, the statute (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(b)(3)) mandates that the label state that the fuel blend “contains more than 20 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel.” 9 EISA states that fuel in this category “shall not require any additional labels.” Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(b)(1). This appears to mean that biodiesel and biomass-based diesel blends at five percent or less do not require any specific label identifying the product as biodiesel but that any labels otherwise applicable to such diesel fuel will continue to apply. Although Section 205 of EISA furnishes precise, mandatory label language, the Act (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(a)) does leave the FTC with discretion to determine the specific size, layout, and color of the required label, as well as to require any additional wording necessary to “inform consumers of the percent of biomass-based diesel or biodiesel that is contained in the biomass-based diesel or biodiesel blend that is offered for sale.” IV. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Rating Rule Consistent with the provisions of EISA, the Commission is proposing to amend the Fuel Rating Rule. These changes: 1) incorporate the definitions for the terms “biomass-based diesel,” “biodiesel,” and “biomass-based diesel and biodiesel blends” contained in Section 205 of EISA; 2) amend the definition of “automotive fuel” to make clear that biodiesel fuels are subject to the rating and certification requirements of the Fuel Rating Rule; and 3) require labeling of biodiesel fuels containing more than five percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel that is consistent with the Congressionally mandated language in Section 205 of EISA and with state model rules proposed by the National Conference on Weights and Measures (“NCWM”). A. Definitions As noted above, Section 205 of EISA requires the Commission to promulgate labeling requirements for “biomass-based diesel,” “biodiesel,” and “biomass-based diesel and biodiesel blends,” as those terms are defined in the Section 205(c) of the statute. The Commission, therefore, proposes adding the statutorily required terms to Section 306.0 of the Fuel Rating Rule. B. Alternative Fuels, Automotive Fuel Rating, and Certification Section 306.0(i)(2) of the Rule currently lists examples of alternative fuels, but specifically states that alternative fuels are “not limited to” those listed. The proposed amendments expressly add biomass-based diesel and biodiesel, as well as blends containing more than five percent biodiesel or biomass-based diesel, to this non-exclusive list. By specifically including these terms, the amendments clarify that biodiesel fuels are covered by the rating and certification requirements of Part 306 of the Rule. 10 10 Consistent with EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, § 205(b)(1)), the amendments to Section 306.0 would also indicate that biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to five percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel by volume, and that meet ASTM D975, are not automotive fuels covered by the requirements of this Rule. Incorporating biodiesel fuels into the Fuel Rating Rule and subjecting them to these rating and certification requirements will help ensure the accuracy of the information on biodiesel fuel labels. The current rating requirements in Section 306.5 and the certification procedures in Section 306.6 provide the means to substantiate fuel ratings throughout the chain of sale. Under the current Rule, refiners, importers, producers, and distributors of alternative liquid automotive fuels must have “competent and reliable evidence” supporting their advertised fuel rating (Sec. 306.5(b) and Sec. 306.8(b)). In addition, sellers must certify that percentage when they transfer the fuel to anyone other than a consumer (Sec. 306.6 and Sec. 306.8(c)). The proposed amendments will ensure that these requirements apply to biodiesel fuels sold at retail pumps. 11 11 It is the responsibility of any entity rating biodiesel blends under Section 306.5 to determine the amount of biodiesel in the fuel it sells. This includes the need to account for biodiesel in any diesel fuel it uses to create such blends ( *e.g.* , diesel fuel containing biodiesel at five percent or less). Finally, to comply with EISA’s labeling requirements, the proposed amendments make minor changes to the rating and certification provisions of the Rule for biodiesel fuel blends. First, the amendments would modify certain language in the Rule’s certification provision (Sec. 306.5(b)) to clarify that biodiesel fuel blends should be rated by the percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel in the fuel, not necessarily by the percentage of the principal component of the fuel as is the case with other alternative fuels. 12 Second, the certification requirements in Section 306.6(b) currently allow transferors of alternative automotive fuels to certify fuel ratings with a letter of certification and provide that this letter remains valid so long as the fuel transferred contains the same or a greater rating of the principal component. However, an increase in the concentration of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel in an automotive fuel may trigger different labeling requirements under EISA if the increase moves the fuel into a different blend category ( *e.g.* , an increase from B-15 to B-30). Therefore, the proposed amendment to Section 306.6(b) states that if transferors of biodiesel fuels choose to use a letter of certification, that letter will be valid only as long as the fuel transferred contains the same percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel as previous fuel transfers covered by the letter. 12 For example, a twenty-five percent biodiesel blend should be rated as twenty-five percent biodiesel, not seventy-five percent diesel. C. Labeling The labeling or “posting” requirements in the proposed amendments employ the language mandated by Congress in EISA and are consistent with the content and format of existing labels for other alternative fuels such as ethanol and propane. In accordance with Section 205 of EISA and consistent with the FTC’s authority under the PMPA, the proposed Rule addresses three biodiesel blend fuel categories. First, the proposed Rule does not require labels for biodiesel fuels containing no more than five percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel, provided that they meet the specifications for diesel fuel contained in ASTM D975. Second, for biodiesel fuel blends of more than five percent but not more than twenty percent biomass-based diesel and biodiesel, the proposed label contains the language required by Congress in Section 205(b)(2) of EISA and additional disclosures as discussed below. Third, for biodiesel fuels containing more than twenty percent, the proposed label contains the language required by Congress in Section 205(b)(3) of EISA. In addition, pursuant to our authority under the PMPA and consistent with EISA’s direction, the proposed amendments specify a label for neat biodiesel ( *i.e.* , 100 percent biodiesel or “B-100”). In addition to the specific disclosures required by EISA, the proposed labels contain fuel terms on the top of the label that are consistent with both the draft model rules proposed by the NCWM and the Fuel Rating Rule’s treatment of other alternative fuels. Specifically, the proposed labels for biodiesel fuels containing more than five but no more than twenty percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel require at the top of the label either: 1) the capital letter “B” followed first by a numeric representation of the percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel and then by the term “biodiesel blend,” such as “B-20 Biodiesel Blend”; or 2) the term “Biodiesel Blend.” 13 For biodiesel fuel blends containing more than twenty percent, the proposed labels require the specific blend designation ( *e.g.* , “B-80”) of the fuel followed by the term “biodiesel blend,” such as “B-80 Biodiesel Blend.” For neat biodiesel ( *i.e.* , B-100), the label requires the words “B-100 Biodiesel” along with the explanatory text “contains 100 percent biomassed-based diesel or biodiesel.” Inclusion of these terms on the proposed label is consistent with draft model rules currently under consideration by the NCWM. 14 It is also consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule’s labels for other alternative fuels, which must disclose the type of alternative fuel at the top of the label ( *e.g.* , “E-85” for eighty-five percent ethanol blends). 13 The choice of designation ( *e.g.* , “B-15 Biodiesel Blend” or “Biodiesel Blend”) is at the discretion of the seller. Giving sellers this choice is consistent with the model rules under consideration by the NCWM and with Section 205 of EISA, which require disclosure only that the fuel contains between five and twenty percent biodiesel or biomass-based diesel, rather than a specific amount. 14 *See* “National Conference on Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations Committee & Petroleum Subcommittee Interim Meeting for the 93rd NCWM Annual Conference; Supplement to NCWM Publication 15,” (Section 3.15). Consistent with the model rules under consideration by the NCWM, the proposed Rule allows pump labels for biodiesel fuel blends from more than five to twenty percent biomass-based diesel and biodiesel to contain the generic term “biodiesel blend” without specifying the percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel fuel. Under this approach, sellers have the flexibility to provide specific percentages in this blend category but are not required to do so. It is our understanding that the blend categories set by Congress and recommended by the NCWM ( *i.e.* , no greater than five percent, greater than five percent but no more than twenty percent, and greater than twenty percent) reflect thresholds that are important with regard to engine compatibility and vehicle warranties. For example, many original equipment manufacturers and customer service departments do not recommend use of biodiesel fuel blends over five percent for many vehicles. 15 For some vehicles, however, consumers can use blends of twenty percent or less biodiesel or biomass-based diesel without triggering engine compatibility or warranty concerns. 16 Accordingly, a precise percentage ( *e.g.* , “B-10”) on the label may not be necessary for the more than five to twenty percent category as long as the label clearly indicates that the fuel, in fact, contains more than five but no greater than twenty percent. 15 *See* , *e.g.* , “OEM Warranty Statements and Use of Biodiesel Blends over 5% (B5),” National Biodiesel Board, available at: *http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/B5_warranty_statement_32206.pdf.* 16 *Id.* With respect to blends above twenty percent, it is our understanding that these fuels are infrequently sold at retail and that customers purchasing such fuels are more likely to be concerned about applicable percentages. 17 17 *See* ASTM D6751, Note 2 (“A considerable amount of experience exists in the U.S. with a 20% blend of biodiesel . . . . Although biodiesel

(B100)can be used, blends of over 20% biodiesel with diesel fuel . . . should be evaluated on a case by case basis until further experience is available.”). Therefore, a requirement for specific percentages appears to be warranted for this category. We seek comments on these issues. In particular, should the Rule allow such a non-specific percentage designation (“biodiesel blend”) for fuel between more than five and twenty percent, or should the Rule require on the label specific percentages for all blends over five percent? Additionally, should blends over twenty percent allow a generic term on the label in lieu of a specific percentage designation on the label? The proposed rule language sets forth the specific size, font, and format requirements for the draft labels. These requirements are consistent with those in place for other alternative liquid fuels in the Rule ( *see* Sec. 306.12). In one departure from existing requirements, we are proposing a purple (PMS 18 2562 or its equivalent) background for all biodiesel fuel labels. The purple background is designed to allow retail consumers to distinguish biodiesel fuels easily from other fuels sold at retail pumps such as gasoline (yellow octane label) and E-85 (orange label) and helps minimize the likelihood that consumers will use the wrong fuel in their vehicle. The Commission invites comment on whether the proposed color is appropriate. Sample illustrations of biodiesel fuel labels can be found in the proposed amendments at Section 306.12(f). 18 Pantone Matching System. We are also proposing conforming changes to allow the use of non Pantone equivalents for other alternative fuels. V. Questions for Comment The Commission seeks comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the “ ADDRESSES ” section above, and must be received on or before April 7, 2008. In addition to any questions and requests for comment found throughout this Notice, we ask that commenters address the following questions: (1)What costs or burdens, or any other impacts, do the proposed requirements impose, and on whom? What evidence supports the asserted costs, burdens, or other impacts? (2)What modifications, if any, should be made to the proposed requirements to increase their benefits to consumers? (a)What evidence supports your proposed modifications? Please submit any such evidence. (b)How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the proposed requirements for consumers? (c)How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the proposed requirements for businesses, and in particular small businesses? (3)What modifications, if any, should be made to the proposed requirements to decrease their burdens on businesses? (a)What evidence supports your proposed modifications? Please submit any such evidence. (b)How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the proposed requirements for consumers? (c)How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the proposed requirements for businesses, and in particular small businesses? (4)Should the Rule allow a non-specific percentage designation (“biodiesel blend”) for biodiesel blends over five and no more than twenty percent? Or should the Rule require specific percentages on the label for all blends over five percent? If so, why and how? If not, why not? What evidence supports your answer(s)? Please submit any such evidence. (5)Should the Rule require a specific designation ( *e.g.* “B-80”) for biodiesel blends over twenty percent? Or, should the Rule allow a generic designation for such blends? If so, why and how? If not, why not? What evidence supports your answer(s)? Please submit any such evidence. (6)Of fuels containing biodiesel sold in the United States, approximately what percentage contains no more than five percent biodiesel? What percentage contains more than five and no more than twenty percent biodiesel? What percentage contains more than twenty percent biodiesel? What evidence supports your answer(s)? Please submit any such evidence. (7)Of fuels containing biomass-based diesel sold in the United States, approximately what percentage contains no more than five percent biomass-based diesel? What percentage contains more than five and no more than twenty percent biomass-based diesel? What percentage contains more than twenty percent biomass-based diesel? What evidence supports your answer(s)? Please submit any such evidence. (8)Is purple (PMS 2562) an appropriate background color for the biodiesel blend and biodiesel label? If not, what color would be appropriate? What evidence supports your answer(s)? Please submit any such evidence. In lieu of a purple label, should the FTC consider a blue label (PMS 277)? (9)Would the Commission' s proposed biodiesel label cause confusion with regard to any label currently used for diesel (or any other fuel) at retail pumps? If so, how? Are there any changes that the Commission could make to its proposal to eliminate such confusion in a manner that also complies with Congress’s directive? What evidence supports your conclusions? VI. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed certification and labeling requirements constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520) (“PRA”). Consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule’s requirements for other alternative fuels, the proposed amendments require refiners, producers, importers, distributors, and retailers of biodiesel fuels to retain, for one year, records of any delivery tickets, letters of certification, or tests upon which they based the automotive fuel ratings that they certify or post. The covered parties also must make these records available for inspection by Commission and Environmental Protection Agency staff or by persons authorized by the Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, retailers must produce, distribute, and post fuel rating labels on fuel pumps. Therefore, the Commission will submit the proposed requirements to OMB for review under the PRA before issuing a final rule. The Commission has previously estimated the burden associated with the Rule’s recordkeeping requirements for the sale of automotive fuels to be no more than five minutes per year per industry member, and it has previously estimated the burden associated with the Rule’s disclosure requirements to be no more than 1/8th of an hour per year per industry member. The recordkeeping “burden,” for OMB purposes, does not include efforts that a covered party would expend in any event. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Therefore, the estimated burden for the Fuel Rating Rule does not include recordkeeping in which covered industry members already engage in their normal course of business. Because the procedures for distributing and selling biodiesel fuels are no different from those for other automotive fuels, the Commission expects that, consistent with practices in the fuel industry generally, the covered parties in the biodiesel fuel industry will record the fuel rating certification on documents ( *e.g.* , shipping receipts) already in use, or will use a one-time letter of certification. Furthermore, the Commission expects that labeling of biodiesel fuel pumps will be consistent with practices in the fuel industry generally. The information collection burden, therefore, will be the same as that for other automotive fuels: five minutes per year for recordkeeping and 1/8th hour per year for disclosure. Based on statistics provided by the National Biodiesel Board (“NBB”), the Commission estimates that there are approximately 200 producers of biodiesel, 2000 distributors of biodiesel, and 1500 retailers of biodiesel. 19 Conservatively assuming that each producer, distributor, and retailer of biodiesel is a distinct entity, and that each seller of biodiesel will spend five minutes per year complying with the proposed recordkeeping requirements and assuming that each retailer will spend 1/8th of an hour per year complying with the proposed disclosure requirements, the Commission estimates the incremental annual burden to be 309 hours for recordkeeping (1/12th of an hour per year times 3700 entities) and 188 hours (1/8th of an hour per year times 1,500 retailers). To ensure the accuracy of this burden estimate, however, the Commission seeks comment on the paperwork burden that the proposed requirements may impose to ensure that the Commission has not overlooked any additional burden. 19 Because the biodiesel industry is young, estimates of its size may not be as accurate as estimates of the size of more mature industries. Therefore, we have conservatively rounded up from the actual statistics provided by the NBB. In a document dated January 25, 2008, the NBB estimated a total of 171 producers of biodiesel and biodiesel blends. *See http://biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Production_Capacity.pdf.* In addition, the NBB’s website lists all known distributors ( *http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/distributors/showall.asp* ) and retailers ( *http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/showall.asp* ) of biodiesel. As of February 4, 2008, the site listed approximately 1250 retailers and 1775 distributors of biodiesel and biodiesel blends. VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) with the final rule, if any, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. §§ 603-605. The FTC does not expect that the proposed amendments will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained in Section VI above, each entity in the biodiesel industry will spend, at most, five minutes per year complying with the proposed recordkeeping requirements and 1/8th of an hour per year complying with the disclosure requirements. Staff estimates the mean hourly wage for employees of producers, importers, and distributors of biodiesel fuels to be $21.39, 20 and the mean hourly wage for employees of biodiesel retailers to be $14.35. 21 Conservatively assuming that all biodiesel producers, distributors, and retailers are small entities, compliance with the recordkeeping requirements will cost producers and distributors $1.61 per year ($19.34 times 1/12th of an hour) and retailers $1.20 ($14.35 times 1/12th of an hour). In addition, under the same conservative assumptions, compliance with the proposed disclosure requirements will cost retailers $1.79 ($14.35 times 1/8th of an hour). 20 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006 Employment Statistics Survey, Annual Average Hourly Earnings for Oil and Gas Extraction Production workers. 21 Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2006 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, “Correspondence Clerks,” Table 1. In addition, retailers will incur the cost of procuring and replacing fuel dispenser labels to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Rule. Staff has previously estimated that the price per automotive fuel label is about fifty cents and that the average automotive fuel retailer has 6 dispensers. Applying those estimates to the biodiesel fuel industry results in an initial cost to retailers of $3.00 (6 pumps times $0.50). In addition, staff has previously estimated the useful life of dispenser labels to range from 6 to 10 years. Assuming a useful life of 8 years, the mean of that range, and distributing the costs on a per-year basis, staff estimates the total annual replacement labeling cost to be $0.06 (1/8 x $0.50). This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency’s certification of no effect. Nonetheless, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact of the proposed amendments on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis. A. Description of the reasons that action by the agency is being considered. Section 205 of EISA (Pub. L. 110-140) requires the Commission to promulgate biodiesel labeling requirements. B. Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule. The Commission is proposing these amendments to implement Congressionally mandated labeling for biodiesel fuels. C. Description of and, where feasible, estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. We assume that all affected entities (200 producers of biodiesel, 2000 distributors of biodiesel, and 1200 retailers of biodiesel) are small businesses. The Commission invites comment and information on this issue. D. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The proposed amendments make clear that the recordkeeping and certification requirements of the Fuel Rating Rule apply to biodiesel. Small entities potentially affected are producers, distributors, and retailers of biodiesel fuels. The Commission expects that the recordkeeping and certification tasks are done by industry members in the normal course of their business. Accordingly, we do not expect the proposed amendments to require any professional skills beyond those already employed by industry members. E. Other duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules. The FTC has identified no other federal statutes, rules, or policies that conflict with the proposed amendments. F. Alternatives Considered. The requirements proposed by the amendments are minimal and, as noted above, do not require creating any separate documents because covered parties may use documents already in use to certify a biodiesel fuel’s rating. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments minimize what, if any, economic impact there is from the labeling requirements mandated by Sec. 205 of EISA. VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner’s advisor will be placed on the public record. *See* 16 CFR 1.26(b)(4). IX. Proposed Rule Language List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 306 Energy conservation, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes the following amendments to 16 CFR Part 306: PART 306—AUTOMOTIVE FUEL RATINGS, CERTIFICATION AND POSTING 1. The authority citation for part 306 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2801 *et seq* ; Pub. L. 110-140. 2. Section 306.0(i)(2) is revised to read as follows: 306.0 Definitions.

(i)* * *

(2)Alternative liquid automotive fuels, including, but not limited to:

(i)Methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols;

(ii)Mixtures containing 85 percent or more by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and/or other alcohols (or such other percentage, but notless than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions), with gasoline or other fuels;

(iii)Liquefied natural gas;

(iv)Liquefied petroleum gas;

(v)Coal-derived liquid fuels;

(vi)Biodiesel;

(vii)Biomass-based diesel;

(viii)Biomass-based diesel blends containing more than 5 percent biomass-based diesel by volume; and

(ix)Biodiesel blends containing more than 5 percent biodiesel by volume. 3. Section 306.0(i)(3) is added to read as follows: § 306.0 Definitions.

(i)* * *

(3)Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel by volume, and that meet American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)standard D975 (“Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils”), are not automotive fuels covered by the requirements of this Part. The incorporation of ASTM D975 by reference was approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM D975 may be obtained from American Society of Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., or at 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.* 4. Section 306.0(j)(3) is added to read as follows: 306.0 Definitions.

(j)* * *

(3)For biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, and blends thereof, a disclosure of the biomass-based diesel or biodiesel component, expressed as the percentage by volume. 5. Section 306.0 is amended by adding paragraphs (k), (l), and

(m)to read as follows: 306.0 Definitions.

(k)*Biomass-based diesel* means a diesel fuel substitute produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources that meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency under 42 U.S.C. § 7545, and includes fuel derived from animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry wastes, and other waste materials, or from municipal solid waste and sludges and oils derived from wastewater and the treatment of wastewater.

(l)*Biodiesel* means the monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from plant or animal matter that meet:

(1)The registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives under 40 CFR Part 79; and

(2)The requirements of the ASTM standard D6751 (“Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock

(B100)for Middle Distillate Fuels”). The incorporation of ASTM D6751 by reference was approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of ASTM D6751 may be obtained from American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., or at 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.

(m)*Biodiesel blend* means a blend of biomass-based diesel or biodiesel fuel that is blended with petroleum-based diesel fuel. 6. Section 306.5(b) is revised to read as follows: 306.5 Automotive fuel rating.

(b)To determine automotive fuel ratings for alternative liquid automotive fuels, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the percentage by volume of the principal component of the alternative liquid automotive fuel that you must disclose, or, in the case of biodiesel blends, the percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel contained in the fuel. You also must have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the minimum percentages by volume of other components that you choose to disclose. 7. Section 306.6(b) is revised to read as follows: 306.6 Certification.

(b)Give the person a letter or other written statement. This letter must include the date, your name, the other person’s name, and the automotive fuel rating of any automotive fuel you will transfer to that person from the date of the letter onwards. Octane rating numbers may be rounded to a whole or half number equal to or less than the number determined by you. This letter of certification will be good until you transfer automotive fuel with a lower automotive fuel rating, except that a letter certifying the fuel rating of biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends will be good only until you transfer those fuels with a different automotive fuel rating, whether the rating is higher or lower. When this happens, you must certify the automotive fuel rating of the new automotive fuel either with a delivery ticket or by sending a new letter of certification. 8. Section 306.10(f) is revised to read as follows: 306.10 Automotive fuel rating posting.

(f)The following examples of automotive fuel rating disclosures for some presently available alternative liquid automotive fuels are meant to serve as illustrations of compliance with this part, but do not limit the Rule’s coverage to only the mentioned fuels:

(1)“Methanol/Minimum ___% Methanol”

(2)“Ethanol/Minimum ___% Ethanol”

(3)“M—85/Minimum ___% Methanol”

(4)“E—85/Minimum ___% Ethanol”

(5)“LPG/Minimum ___% Propane” or “LPG/Minimum ___% Propane and ___% Butane”

(6)“LNG/Minimum ___% Methane”

(7)“B-20 Biodiesel Blend/contains biomass-based diesel or biodiesel in quantities between 5 percent and 20 percent”

(8)“B-100 Biodiesel/contains 100 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel” 9. In § 306.12, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows: 306.12 Labels.

(a)* * *

(2)*For alternative liquid automotive fuel labels (one principal component) other than biodiesel blends.* The label is 3 inch (7.62 cm) wide 2 1/2 inch (6.35 cm) long. “Helvetica black” type is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the fuel name is 1/4 inch (.64 cm) from the top of the label and 3/16 inch (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the black band is 1/8 inch (.32 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered horizontally, with1/8 inch (.32 cm) between each line. The bottom line of type is 3/16 inch (.48 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than 3/16 inch (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label. If you wish to change the dimensions of this single component label to accommodate a fuel descriptor that is longer than shown in the sample labels, you must petition the Federal Trade Commission. You can do this by writing to the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the size and contents of the label that you wish to use, and the reasons that you want to use it. 10. In § 306.12, paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) are added to read as follows: 306.12 Labels.

(a)* * *

(4)*For biodiesel blends containing more than 5 percent and no greater than 20 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel by volume.* The label is 3 inch (7.62 cm) wide 2 1/2 inch (6.35 cm) long. “Helvetica black” type is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label contains either:

(i)The capital letter “B” followed immediately by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel in the fuel ( *e.g.* , “B-20”) and then by the term “Biodiesel Blend”; or

(ii)The term “Biodiesel Blend.” The band should measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the text in the band is 1/4 inch (.64 cm) from the top of the label and 3/16 inch (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. Directly underneath the black band, the label shall read “contains biomass-based diesel or biodiesel in quantities between 5 percent and 20 percent.” The script underneath the black band must be centered horizontally, with 1/8 inch (.32 cm) between each line. The bottom line of type is 1/4 inch (.64 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than 3/16 inch (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label.

(5)*For biodiesel blends containing more than 20 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel by volume.* The requirements are the same as in Section 306.12(a)(4), except that the black band at the top of the label shall contain the capital letter “B” followed immediately by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel in the fuel ( *e.g.* , “B-70”) and then the term “Biodiesel Blend.” In addition, the words directly underneath the black band shall read “contains more than 20 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel.”

(6)*For biodiesel (B-100).* The requirements are the same as in § 306.12(a)(4), except that the black band at the top of the label shall contain the phrase “B-100 Biodiesel.” In addition, the words directly underneath the black band shall read “contains 100 percent biomass-based diesel or biodiesel.” 11. In § 306.12, paragraph (c)(2) is revised and paragraph (c)(3) is added to read as follows: 306.12 Labels.

(c)* * * *

(2)*For alternative liquid automotive fuel labels other than biodiesel, biomass-based diesel, and biodiesel blends.* The background color on all the labels is Orange: PMS 1495 or its equivalent. The knock-out type within the black band is Orange: PMS 1495 or its equivalent. All other type is process black. All borders are process black. All colors must be non-fade.

(3)*For biodiesel, biomass-based diesel, and biodiesel blends.* The background color on all the labels is Purple: PMS 2562 or its equivalent. The knock-out type within the black band is Purple: PMS 2562 or its equivalent. All other type is process black. All borders are process black. All colors must be non-fade. 12. In § 306.12(f), the following graphics are added to the end of the section to read as follows: 306.12 Labels.

(f)* * * EP11mr08.000 By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary [FR Doc. E8-4699 Filed 3-10-08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6751-01-S SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA 2008-0007] RIN 0960-AG70 Representative Payment Under Titles II, VIII and XVI of the Social Security Act AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: We propose to amend our rules governing how we investigate representative payee applicants. Under these proposed rules, any payee who has previously satisfied the payee investigation process including a face-to-face interview and is currently serving as a payee, need not appear for another face-to-face interview when making a subsequent application to become a payee, unless we determine, within our discretion, that a new face-to-face interview is necessary. This change would streamline our representative payee application process, thereby allowing payee applicants to become qualified in a shorter timeframe when they have already been investigated. This should expedite the payment of benefits in certain representative payee situations. It will also reduce the burden to the public and reduce traffic in our field offices when a payee applicant has already satisfied the face-to-face interview required by law. DATES: To be sure that we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than *May 12, 2008.* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of four methods—Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-delivery. Please do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which of the following methods you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2008-0007 to ensure that we can associate your comments with the correct regulation: 1. Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* (This is the most expedient method for submitting your comments, and we strongly urge you to use it.) In the *Comment or Submission* section of the webpage, type “SSA-2008-0007”, select “Go”, and then click “Send a Comment or Submission.” The Federal eRulemaking portal issues you a tracking number when you submit a comment. 2. Telefax to

(410)966-2830. 3. Letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-7703. 4. Deliver your comments to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 922 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. All comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking portal, although they may not appear for several days after receipt of the comment. You may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. *Caution:* Our policy for comments we receive from members of the public is to make them available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, you should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available on the Internet. We strongly urge you not to include any personal information, such as your Social Security number or medical information, in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome Albanese, Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,

(404)562-1024, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Background Under the authority of sections 205(j), 807 and 1631(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (the Act), we select a representative payee for certain persons eligible for Social Security benefits under title II of Act, special veteran's benefits

(SVBs)under title VIII of the Act, or supplemental security income under title XVI of the Act. We select a representative payee if we believe that payment through a payee rather than direct payment of benefits is in the interest of that beneficiary. Subpart U of part 404, subpart F of part 408, and subpart F of part 416 of our regulations explain the procedures that we follow in determining whether to make representative payment and in selecting a representative payee under the title II, VIII and XVI programs. Based on 205(j)(2), 807(b) and 1631(a)(2)(B) of the Act, our current rules at §§ 404.2024 and 416.624 require that, before selecting an individual or organization to act as a person's representative payee, we will investigate a payee applicant to determine the applicant's suitability. Section 408.624 adopts these investigatory requirements for SVBs by cross-reference to § 404.2024. An investigation includes, among other things, a face-to-face interview unless it is impracticable to do so. The Act at 205(j)(2)(A)(i), 807(b)(1)(A) and 1631(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) states that we conduct a face-to-face interview with a payee applicant to the extent practicable. Based on this authority, our current rules at §§ 404.2024 and 416.624 indicate that we generally conduct a face-to-face interview with a payee applicant each time they file to become a payee, regardless of whether the payee has already satisfied the investigation and undergone a prior face-to-face interview. Our current rules at §§ 404.2024(b) and 416.624(b) appear to provide only one exception to the requirement for holding a face-to-face interview, and that is when such an interview is impracticable. These sections explain that a face-to-face interview is impracticable if conducting one would cause undue hardship, such as when a payee applicant would have to travel a great distance to the field office. Our current rules also indicate that we may decide it is impracticable to require subsequent face-to-face interviews for organizational payees that are known by our field office as suitable payees. We base this decision on the organization's past performance, recent contacts, and the organization's knowledge of and compliance with our reporting requirements. Explanation of Changes We propose to eliminate the requirement that we conduct a face-to-face interview before selecting an individual or organization to be a representative payee if we have already conducted a face-to-face with that payee and the payee is qualified and currently acting as a payee. However, we would retain discretionary authority to require a subsequent face-to-face interview of any payee applicant. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we have proposed revisions to §§ 404.2024(b) and 416.624(b) that would accomplish these rule changes. We propose adding a new paragraph (c), “Impracticable,” to §§ 404.2024(c) and 416.624(c). This new paragraph would contain the first three sentences of current §§ 404.2024(b) and 416.624(b), with editorial changes. We are not proposing any substantive changes to this text. Clarity of These Proposed Rules Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these final rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand. *For example:* • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated? • Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand? When Will We Start To Use These Rules? We will not use these rules until we evaluate the public comments we receive on them, determine whether they should be issued as final rules, and issue final rules in the **Federal Register** . If we publish final rules, we will explain in the preamble how we will apply them, and summarize and respond to the public comments. Until the effective date of any final rules, we will continue to use our current rules. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Amended We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and determined that these proposed rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as amended. Thus, they were subject to OMB review. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act These regulations impose no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96-006, Supplemental Security Income; 96-020, Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404 Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security. 20 CFR Part 416 Administrative practice and procedure; Aged; Blind, Disability benefits; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Dated: March 3, 2008. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend subpart U of part 404 and subpart F of part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950-) Subpart U—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart U continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205 (a), (j), and (k), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), (j), and (k), and 902(a)(5)). 2. Amend § 404.2024 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and

(b)and by adding new paragraph

(c)as follows: § 404.2024 How do we investigate a representative payee applicant?

(a)* * *

(1)Conduct a face-to-face interview with the payee applicant unless it is impracticable as explained in paragraph

(c)of this section.

(b)*Subsequent face-to-face interviews.* After holding a face-to-face interview with a payee applicant, subsequent face-to-face interviews are not required if that applicant continues to be qualified and currently is acting as a payee, unless we determine, within our discretion, that a new face-to-face interview is necessary. We base this decision on the payee's past performance and knowledge of and compliance with our reporting requirements.

(b)and by adding new paragraph

(c)as follows: § 416.624 How do we investigate a representative payee applicant?

(a)* * *

(1)Conduct a face-to-face interview with the payee applicant unless it is impracticable as explained in paragraph

(c)of this section.

(c)*Impracticable.* We may consider a face-to-face interview impracticable if it would cause the payee applicant undue hardship. For example, the payee applicant would have to travel a great distance to the field office. In this situation, we may conduct the investigation to determine the payee applicant's suitability to serve as a representative payee without a face-to-face interview. [FR Doc. E8-4781 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0006] RIN 1625-AA01 Seventh Coast Guard District, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Temporary Restricted Anchorage AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishment of three, multi-purpose, temporary restricted anchorages with associated safety/security zones to service vessels intending to call on the ports of Jacksonville or Fernandina within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville as defined by 33 CFR 3.35-20. The temporary restricted anchorages and safety/security zones identify clearly to all mariners the pre-established area of the Captain of the Port Zone for geographic separation and/or restriction of certain vessels that may pose a safety, public health, environmental, or security threat to the port. The proposed temporary restricted anchorages are necessary to protect the public, port infrastructure, maritime environment, and viability of the Marine Transportation System from hazards associated with safety, public health, environmental, and security threats. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0006 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov* .

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(3)*Hand deliver:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Lieutenant Commander Austin Ives at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is

(904)564-7563. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments *If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking* (USCG-2008-0006), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0006) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Department, 4200 Ocean St., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233-2416, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://www.DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose In 2003-2004, the Northeast and Eastern Central Florida, Area Maritime Security Committee initiated a project to identify potential temporary restricted anchorage areas to which the COTP could direct vessels that presented safety, public health, environmental, or security threats. The project aligned and broadened the on-going efforts of the Consolidated City of Jacksonville/Duval County Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning Council to develop contingency plans for public health threats. The site selection process for designating temporary restricted anchorages was delegated to the Jacksonville Maritime Transportation Exchange, regional Harbor Safety Committee (HSC). In determining the most efficient and effective anchorage area(s), the HSC considered impacts to the public, the environment, and maritime mobility. After detailed evaluation (site selection criteria is explained under the “Discussion of Proposed Rule” section), the committee proposed a set of temporary restricted anchorages to serve the ports of Jacksonville and Fernandina. The concept advocated three such areas

(1)very near-shore, approximately four nautical miles, to facilitate quick response by medical personnel where disease and hazardous substance exposure is not a threat to the shoreline,

(2)a second area further off-shore, approximately seven nautical miles, for disease and/or threats that could pose hazardous to the general population, and

(3)a final third anchorage just inside territorial seas, approximately twelve nautical miles, for grave threats that require substantial interagency planning and response. It is anticipated that the need to use these temporary restricted anchorages will be rare. However, with clear pre-designation of the anchorages and associated safety/security zones, mariners are both informed of contingency plans and knowledgeable of requirements prior to activation. In addition, Federal, State, and Local plans will be able to clearly reference the establishment process and position of the anchorages for better contingency strategy development. The COTP will determine on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the threat, whether a safety or security zone is necessary for the activation of a temporary restricted anchorage. These temporary restricted anchorages and associated safety/security zones are designed for the geographic separation and/or restriction of vessels or persons on such vessels when such vessels or persons pose or are suspected of posing a safety, public health, environmental, or security threat. Threats may include, but are not limited to, the spread of infectious disease or unauthorized transportation of hazardous or illegal substances. The HSC recommended single-ship anchorages with an accompanying limited access area. The target ship type for said anchorages is deep draft ocean-going, ranging from large tug/barge combinations to larger cargo carriers and cruise ships. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule creates a set of three temporary restricted anchorages off Amelia Island, FL within the COTP Zone Jacksonville, as defined by 33 CFR 3.35-20. The proposed temporary restricted anchorages will be activated on a case by case basis by the Captain of the Port

(COTP)and/or Federal Maritime Security Coordinator

(FMSC)and will be disestablished when the COTP and/or FMSC releases the vessel or person on such vessel from temporary restriction.

(1)*Anchorage Locations:* General location for the set of three temporary restricted anchorage areas is four, seven, and twelve nautical miles from the shoreline, due east off Amelia Island, Florida.

(a)*Anchorage A:* When activated by the COTP/FMSC, Anchorage A will have a 500 yard safety zone or security zone, as applicable, around the point originating from approximate position 30-36N 81-21.8W.

(b)*Anchorage B:* When activated by the COTP/FMSC, Anchorage B will have a 500 yard safety or security zone, as applicable, around the point originating from approximate position 30-36N 81-18.5W.

(c)*Anchorage C:* When activated by the COTP/FMSC, Anchorage C will have a 500 yard safety or security zone, as applicable, around the point originating from approximate position 30-36N 81-13.5W.

(2)*Site Selection:* Given the close proximity of the ports of Jacksonville and Fernandina, their approach traffic lanes, and response times for collective emergency services, it is recommended that one set of anchorages be established to serve these two ports. Candidate anchorages were chosen for their sufficient water depth, holding ground, and proximity to de-facto approach lanes to the aforementioned ports.

(a)Other considerations.

(i)*Shoreline characteristics:* The NE Florida/SE Georgia coastline is primarily barrier island in nature. The proposed positioning for the set of temporary restricted anchorages is off Amelia Island. Both north and south ends of the island are State and County parks. To the north are Cumberland, Jeckyl, and St. Simon's Island. To the south are Big and Little Talbot Island. Given their size, civilian populations on the islands are very small. Cumberland and Big and Little Talbot Islands are Federal and State Parks with populations less than 50 persons combined. All of the islands are linked to the mainland by one or two bridges, except for Cumberland Island where access is only by water. With this limited access, site control to and within these areas is achievable.

(ii)*Winds:* Winds are primarily from the NE in the winter and fall and from the ESE/SE during the spring and summer months. The proposed anchorage location was selected with these wind patterns in mind because both Cumberland Island to the north and Little Talbot Island to the south are parks with limited populations and limited access. They would make good candidates for emergency response staging and/or monitoring sites.

(iii)*Right Whales:* Choosing one set of anchorage locations to service three ports reduces the potential impact to Northern Right Whale Critical Habitat and further mitigates ship-strike potential.

(iv)*Artificial Reefs:* The off-shore environment of NE Florida and SE Georgia are replete with artificial reefs. The proposed positioning of the anchorages successfully avoids impinging upon artificial reef areas with the closest reef being 2.5 NM north and seaward of the outermost anchorage. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)because zone activation will be on a case by case basis only, for limited duration, at the discretion of the COTP when such action is required to protect the public, port infrastructure, and the environment. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit within an activated temporary restricted anchorage. These anchorages will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because zone activation will be on a case by case basis only, for a limited duration, at the discretion of the COTP when such action is required to protect the public, port infrastructure, environment, and viability of the Marine Transportation System. Additionally, vessel traffic could pass safely around the temporary restricted anchorages. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. 2. Add § 110.184 to read as follows: § 110.184 Seventh Coast Guard District, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Temporary Restricted Anchorage.

(a)*Applicability.* This section applies to all vessels regardless of tonnage or service and all persons on such vessels subject to COTP authority within the COTP Zone Jacksonville as defined by 33 CFR 3.35-20.

(b)*Temporary Restricted Anchorage Zones:* The following three temporary restricted anchorage areas are established off Amelia Island, FL within the COTP Zone Jacksonville, as defined by 33 CFR 3.35-20. Each anchorage area has an accompanying 500 yard safety/security zone, as applicable, emanating from its center point described in the following section:

(1)Anchorage A: Originates approximately four nautical miles off Amelia Island, Florida in position 30-36N 81-21.8W.

(2)Anchorage B: Originates approximately seven nautical miles off Amelia Island, Florida in position 30-36N 81-18.5W.

(3)Anchorage C: Originates approximately twelve nautical miles off Amelia Island, Florida in position 30-36N 81-13.5W.

(c)*Definitions.* The following definition applies to this section:

(1)*Temporary Restricted Anchorage* refers to off-shore areas designated for the geographic separation and/or restriction of vessels or persons on such vessels posing or are suspected of posing a safety, public health, environmental, or security threat.

(2)*Designated representatives means* Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard assets, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), Jacksonville, Florida, in the enforcement of the temporary restricted anchorage area.

(d)*Anchorage Requirements.* Vessels directed to a temporary anchorage shall:

(1)If equipped with an Automatic Identification System (AIS), maintain it in the “on” position.

(2)Maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by an English-speaking, licensed deck officer monitoring VHF-FM Channel 16. This individual shall perform frequent checks of the vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.

(e)*Safety/Security Zone requirements.*

(1)Only the specified vessel may occupy the temporary restricted anchorage area. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 and § 165.33 of this part, no person or vessel may anchor, moor, or transit the Regulated Area without permission of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida, or a designated representative.

(2)The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the temporary restricted anchorage activation.

(f)*Captain of the Port Contact Information.* If you have questions about the conditions under which the COTP may direct a vessel to temporary restricted anchorage, location of the temporary restricted anchorage areas, the requirements once a vessel is directed to temporary restricted anchorage, or other matters dealing with this regulation, please contact the Sector Jacksonville Command Center at

(904)564-7513. Dated: February 12, 2008. W.D. Lee, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh District (Acting). [FR Doc. E8-4757 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 08-504; MB Docket No. 08-30; RM-11419] Television Broadcasting Services; Riverside, California AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a channel substitution proposed by KRCA License, LLC, requesting the post-transition digital television allotment for KRCA-DT, Riverside, California be changed from Channel 45 to Channel 35. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 10, 2008, and reply comments on or before April 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the petitioner as follows: Marnie K. Sarver, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun A. Maher, Media Bureau

(202)418-1600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-30, adopted March 5, 2008, and released March 5, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mail *http://www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Television, Television broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.622(i), the DTV Table of Allotments under California, is amended by substituting channel 35 for channel 45. Federal Communications Commission. Clay C. Pendarvis, Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-4909 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R6-2008-0029; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the population of the North American wolverine ( *Gulo gulo luscus* ) that occurs in the contiguous United States. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we have determined that the population of North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States does not constitute a listable entity under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition to list the North American wolverine ( *Gulo gulo luscus* ) that occurs in the contiguous United States is not warranted for listing. The Service will continue to seek new information on the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status of the North American wolverine and we will continue to support cooperative conservation of wolverines in the contiguous United States. DATES: This finding was made on March 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Supporting documentation we used to prepare this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601; telephone

(406)449-5225. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above street address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition containing substantial scientific and commercial information that listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is:

(a)Not warranted,

(b)warranted, or

(c)warranted, but that immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the **Federal Register** . Previous Federal Actions We received a petition dated August 3, 1994, from the Predator Project (now named the Predator Conservation Alliance) and Biodiversity Legal Foundation to list the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened or endangered species under the Act and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. On April 19, 1995, we published a finding (60 FR 19567) that the petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States may be warranted. We did not make a determination as to whether the contiguous United States population of the North American wolverine constituted a distinct population segment or other listable entity. On July 14, 2000, we received another petition dated July 11, 2000, submitted by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Predator Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, and Superior Wilderness Action Network, to list the North American wolverine within the contiguous United States as a threatened or endangered species under the Act and to designate critical habitat for the species concurrent with the listing. On October 21, 2003, we published a 90-day finding that the petition to list the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States did not present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing as threatened or endangered may be warranted (68 FR 60112). We did not determine whether the contiguous United States population of the North American wolverine constituted a distinct population segment (or other listable entity), because sufficient information was not available at the time. On September 29, 2006, as a result of a complaint filed by Defenders of Wildlife and others alleging we used the wrong standards to assess the wolverine petition, the U.S. District Court, Montana District, ruled that our 90-day petition finding was in error and ordered us to make a 12-month finding for the wolverine ( *Defenders of Wildlife et al.* v. *Norton and Hogan* (9:05cv99 DWM; D. MT)). On April 6, 2007, the Court approved an unopposed motion to extend the deadline for this 12-month finding to February 28, 2008, so that we would be able to use information published in the September 2007 edition of the *Journal of Wildlife Management* containing a special section on North American wolverine biology. On June 5, 2007, we published a notice initiating a status review for the wolverine (72 FR 31048). Species Biology The currently accepted taxonomy classifies wolverines worldwide as a single species, *Gulo gulo* . The wolverine has a holarctic distribution. Old and New World wolverines are divided into separate Old World and New World subspecies. Wolverines of Eurasia (Old World) comprise the subspecies *G. g. gulo* . Wolverines in the contiguous United States are a part of the New World or North American (United States and Canada) subspecies, *G. g. luscus* (Kurten and Rausch 1959, p. 19; Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. 1). The two subspecies differ in minor aspects of skull morphology (Kurten and Rausch 1959, p. 19), but significant differences in ecology, behavior, demography, or natural history do not appear to exist. Most authors, when discussing these aspects of wolverine biology, refer to New and Old World wolverines interchangeably (e.g., Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, entire). We consider the Old and New World subspecies to be similar and reliable enough to refer to information on Old World wolverines ( *G. g. gulo* ) as a surrogate for the North American wolverine in this finding when such information is not available specifically for the North American subspecies. The wolverine is the largest terrestrial member of the family *Mustelidae* . Adult males weigh 12 to 18 kilograms

(kg)(26 to 40 pounds (lb)), and adult females weigh 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb) (Banci 1994, p. 99). The wolverine resembles a small bear with a bushy tail. It has a broad, rounded head; short, rounded ears; and small eyes. Each foot has five toes with curved, semi-retractile claws used for digging and climbing (Banci 1994, p. 99). Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. They primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small animals and birds, and eat fruits, berries, and insects (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111-113). Wolverines have an excellent sense of smell that enables them to find food beneath deep snow (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1297). Wolverines consume large ungulate carrion when available. The most important food items in wolverine diets are large ungulate species, followed by small animals such as beaver, marmots, ground squirrels, rabbits, hares, porcupine, voles, ground nesting birds, and insects (Banci 1994, p. 112; Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, pp. 498-499). The large ungulates in wolverine diets are assumed to be the result of scavenging, although wolverines are able to occasionally kill large ungulates in deep snow conditions when ungulate mobility is impaired (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, pp. 498-499). Large ungulates comprise a larger proportion of the diet in winter than in snow-free seasons (Banci 1994, Table 5). The availability of large ungulate herds is of paramount importance for wolverines and the availability of large mammals underlies the wolverine's distribution, survival, and reproductive success (Banci 1994, p. 111). Wolverines have delayed onset of reproduction in females and small litter sizes. Studies of wolverine carcasses from trapper harvest have provided some useful data on reproductive parameters (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 253-267; Liskop et al. 1981, pp. 472-476; Banci and Harestad 1988, pp. 266-268). These carcass studies indicate that a large number of female wolverines (40 percent) are apparently capable of giving birth at 2 years old, become pregnant most years, and produce average litter sizes of approximately 3.4 kits. However, carcass studies are subject to overestimating frequency of reproduction and the number of kits per litter, and underestimating the age at first reproduction because embryos are often resorbed by females that are energetically unable to complete pregnancy (Persson *et al.* 2006, p. 75; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). These aborted pregnancies result in corpora lutea (uterine scarring) in the female reproductive tract, leading to the erroneous conclusion that a female had reproduced at an early age and that litter sizes are relatively large. Field studies using radio telemetry are better able to determine the actual age at first reproduction and the actual number of kits successfully raised to weaning. Based on these studies, average age at first reproduction is likely more than 3 years (Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). Pregnant females commonly resorb or spontaneously abort litters when food availability is so low as to prevent successful completion of pregnancy or lactation to the time of weaning (Magoun 1985, pp. 30-31; Copeland 1996, p. 43; Persson et al. 2006, p. 77; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). Supplemental feeding of females increases reproductive potential (Persson 2005, p. 1456) and success at raising kits to the time of weaning, and indicates that food availability is likely to be a limiting factor for wolverine populations. In one study of known-aged females, none reproduced at age 2; 3 of 10 first reproduced at age 3; and 2 did not reproduce until age 4. The average age at first reproduction for this study was 3.4 years (rather than 2 years for the carcass studies above) (Persson et al. 2006, pp. 76-77). From these studies, we conclude that, by age three, nearly all female wolverines become pregnant every year, but energetic constraints resulting from low food availability result in loss of pregnancy about every other year. It is likely that, in many places in the range of wolverines in the lower 48 States, it takes 2 years of foraging for a female to store enough energy to successfully reproduce (Persson 2005, p. 1456; Inman et al. 2007c, Table 3). Breeding generally occurs from late spring to early fall (Magoun and Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; Mead et al. 1991, pp. 808-811). Females undergo delayed implantation until the following winter to spring, when active gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254-257). Litters are born between February and April and contain 1 to 5 kits, with an average in North America of between 1 and 2 kits (rather than 3.4 kits, as indicated by carcass studies) (Magoun 1985, pp. 28-31; Copeland 1996, p. 36; Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland and Yates 2006, pp. 32-36; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 68). Several aspects related to reproductive denning are significant to wolverine reproductive success (Banci 1994, p. 110; Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1319; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 71). Female wolverines use two kinds of dens for reproduction. Females use natal (birthing) dens to give birth and raise kits early postpartum, and in some cases females may raise kits to weaning in the natal den. However, in most situations prior to weaning, females may move kits to one or multiple alternative den sites, which are referred to as maternal dens. The female then raises her kits to weaning in the maternal den. The movement of kits from natal to maternal dens may be a response by the female to den disturbance, better food availability in the new location, predation risk, or deteriorating den conditions in the natal den (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316-1319). Female wolverines use natal dens that are excavated in snow. Persistent, stable snow greater than 1.5 meters

(m)(5 feet (ft)) deep appears to be a requirement for natal denning, presumably because it provides security for offspring and buffers cold winter temperatures (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Copeland 1996, pp. 92-97; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1317-1318; Banci 1994, pp. 109-110; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72). Female wolverines go to great lengths to find secure den sites, suggesting that predation is a concern (Banci 1994, p. 107). Natal dens consist of tunnels that contain well-used runways and bed sites, and that may naturally incorporate shrubs, rocks, and downed logs as part of their structure (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1315-1316; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72). In Idaho, natal den sites occur above 2,500 m (8,200 ft) on rocky sites, such as north-facing boulder talus or subalpine cirques in forest openings (Magoun and Copeland 1994, pp. 1315-1316). In Montana, natal dens occur above 2,400 m (7,874 ft) and are located on north aspects in avalanche debris, typically in alpine habitats near timberline (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72). Dens (natal and maternal) are typically used from early February through late April or early May (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1314-1317; Inman et al. 2007b, pp. 55-59). Occupation of natal dens is variable, ranging from approximately 9 to 65 days depending on whether or not the female wolverine perceives the need to move her kits (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316-1317). Females may use multiple secondary (maternal) dens (Pulliainen 1968, p. 343; Myrberget 1968, p. 115), or use of maternal dens may be minimal (Inman et al. 2007c, p. 69). Timing of den abandonment is related to accumulation of water in dens (snow melt), the maturation of offspring, disturbance, and geographic location (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun 1985, p. 73). Post-weaning dens are called rendezvous sites. These dens may be used through early July. Females leave their kits at rendezvous sites while foraging, and return periodically to provide food for the kits. These sites are characterized by natural (unexcavated) cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs (avalanche debris), and snow (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 55-56). Habitat and Home Range In North America, wolverines occur within a wide variety of arctic, sub-arctic and alpine habitats, primarily boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains throughout Alaska and Canada; however, the southern portion of their range extends into the contiguous United States, including Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). In the contiguous United States, wolverines are restricted to high-elevation habitats in the Rocky Mountains and North Cascades containing the arctic and sub-arctic conditions they require. Home ranges of wolverines are large, but vary greatly depending on availability of food, gender, age, and differences in habitat. The availability and distribution of food is likely the primary factor in determining wolverine movements and home range size (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117-118). Wolverines travel long distances over rough terrain and deep snow, and adult males generally cover greater distances than females (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117-118). Home ranges of adult wolverines are approximately 100 square kilometers (km 2 ) to over 900 km 2 (38.5 square miles (mi 2 ) to 348 mi 2 ) (Banci 1994, p. 117). Average home ranges of resident adult females in central Idaho are 384 km 2 (148 mi 2 ), and average home ranges of resident adult males are 1,522 km 2 (588 mi 2 ) (Copeland 1996, p. 50). Wolverines in Glacier National Park have average male home ranges of 496 km 2 (193 mi 2 ) and female home ranges of 141 km 2 (55 mi 2 ) (Copeland and Yates 2006, p. 25). Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone Area have average adult male home ranges of 797 km 2 (311 mi 2 ) and average adult female home ranges of 329 km 2 (128 mi 2 ) (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 4). Home ranges for carnivores of similar body size are smaller than wolverine home ranges at their southern range terminus. Canada lynx in the United States Rocky Mountains average 122 km 2 (47 mi 2 ) (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. 383-384), and coyote home ranges extend from 2.5 to 15 km 2 (1 to 5.8 mi 2 ) (Chronert 2007, p. 2). Wolverine home ranges at the southern terminus of the current range are large for mammals of the size of wolverines, and may indicate that wolverines have high energetic requirements and at the same time occupy relatively unproductive niches (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In addition, wolverines naturally occur in low densities that average about one wolverine per 150 km 2 (58 mi 2 ) (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292-1295; Hash 1987, p. 578; Copeland 1996, pp. 31-32; Copeland and Yates 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 10; Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218). Wolverine Status in Canada and Alaska The bulk of the range of North American wolverines is found in Canada and Alaska. Wolverines inhabit alpine tundra, boreal forest, and arctic habitats in western Canada and Alaska (Slough 2007, p. 78). Wolverines in Canada have been divided into two populations for management by the Canadian government: an eastern population in Labrador and Quebec; and a western population that extends from Ontario to the Pacific coast, and north to the Arctic Ocean. The eastern population is currently listed as endangered under the Species At Risk Act in Canada, and the western population is designated as a species of special concern (COSEWIC 2003, p. 8). The current status of wolverines in eastern Canada is uncertain. Wolverines have not been confirmed to occur in Quebec since 1978 (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 4). Historical evidence of wolverine presence in eastern Canada is also suspect because no evidence exists to show that wolverine pelts attributed to Quebec or Labrador actually came from that region; possibly animals were trapped elsewhere and the pelts were shipped through the eastern provinces (COSEWIC 2003, p. 20). Wolverines in eastern Canada may currently exist in an extremely low-density population, or may be extirpated. Wolverines in eastern Canada, both historically and currently, could represent migrants from western populations that never became resident animals (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20-21). The government of Canada has completed a recovery plan for the eastern population with the goal of establishing a self-sustaining population through reintroduction and protection (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 16). Wolverines in western Canada and Alaska inhabit a variety of habitats from sea level to high elevations in mountains (Slough 2007, pp. 77-78). In Canada, they occur in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut (Slough 2007, pp. 77-78). Since European colonization, a generally recognized range contraction has taken place in boreal Ontario and the aspen parklands of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20-21; Slough 2007, p. 77). This range contraction occurred concurrently with a reduction in wolverine records for the Great Lakes region in the lower 48 States (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2155-2156). Causes of these changes are uncertain, but may be related to increased harvest, habitat modification, or climate change (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20-21; Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2155-2156; Slough 2007, pp. 77-78). Analysis supports climate change as a contributing factor to declines in wolverine populations in southern Ontario, because snow conditions necessary to support wolverines do not currently exist in the Great Lakes region of the lower 48 States, and are marginal in southern Ontario (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154). Wolverines occurred historically on Vancouver Island and have been given status as a separate subspecies by some (Hall 1981, p. 109). The Vancouver Island population is now regarded as possibly extirpated; no sightings have occurred since 1992 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 18). Wolverines in western Canada and Alaska appear to persist where habitat and climate conditions are favorable (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13-21; Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2152-2155; Slough 2007, p. 79). Throughout this area, wolverines are managed by regulated harvest at the Province and State level. Population estimates for Canada and Alaska are approximate because no wolverine surveys have taken place at the State or national scale. However, the population in western Canada includes an estimated 15,089 to 18,967 individuals, based on population densities and occupied area (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22). The number of wolverines in Alaska is unknown, but they appear to exist at naturally low densities in suitable habitats throughout Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2004, pp. 1-359). We have no information to indicate that wolverine populations have been reduced in numbers or geographic range in Alaska. Wolverine Status in the Contiguous United States The delineation of the historical and present distribution of wolverine is inherently difficult for several reasons. Wolverines tend to live in remote and inhospitable places away from human populations. Wolverines naturally occur at low densities and are rarely and unpredictably encountered where they do occur. Wolverines often move long distances in short periods of time when dispersing from natal ranges (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2147), making it difficult to distinguish with confidence between occurrence records that represent established populations and those that represent short-term occupancy without the potential for establishment of home ranges and reproduction. These natural attributes of wolverines make it difficult to determine their present range, or trends in range expansion or contraction that may have occurred in the past. Therefore, we must be cautious when trying to determine where past wolverine populations occurred, and where application of conservation actions may be possible in the future. Aubry et al. (2007, entire) represents the best available science on the wolverine's geographic range in the contiguous United States. This study (2007, pp. 2147-2148) used verifiable and documented records from museum collections, literature sources, and State and Federal institutions to trace changes in geographic distribution of wolverines in the historic record. Aubry et al.'s

(2007)focus on verifiable and documented records corrected past overly broad approaches to wolverine range mapping (Nowak 1973, p. 22; Hall 1981, p. 1009; Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576) that used a more inclusive but potentially misleading approach when dealing with extralimital records (i.e., records from outside of established, reproducing populations). Aubry et al. (2007, p. 2155) concluded that these records represent individuals dispersing from natal ranges that often end up in habitats that cannot support wolverines, and their use in determining the potential range of wolverine can overestimate the area that can actually be used by wolverines for home ranges and breeding. Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2147-2148) divided records into “historical” (recorded prior to 1961), “recent” (recorded between 1961 and 1994), and “current” (recorded after 1994). Historical records occurred before systematic surveys and encompass the time during which wolverine numbers and distribution were hypothesized to be at their lowest, in the first half of the 1900s (Wright and Thompson 1935; Grinnell et al. 1937; Allen 1942; Newby and Wright 1955, all as cited in Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2148). The recent time interval covers a hypothesized population expansion and rebound from an earlier low (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2148-2149). Current records are considered by Aubry et al. (2007, p. 2148) to be a reliable depiction of where populations occur now. Wolverine Distribution in the Contiguous United States Using data from Aubrey et al. 2007, we assessed the historical, recent, and current distribution data for each of six geographical regions to determine the likelihood of the presence of historical populations (rather than extralimital dispersers). Table 1 illustrates wolverine numbers in the six geographic areas assessed by Aubry et al. (2007, Table 1). More detail on wolverine distribution over time is included in the text that follows. Table 1.—Verifiable and Documented Records of Wolverine Occurrence in the Contiguous United States by Region and State [Reproduced from Aubrey et al. 2007, p. 2151] Region and State Historical records 1800s 1901-1910 1911-1920 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941-1950 1951-1960 Recent records 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1994 Current records 1995-2005 Most recent verifiable record Pacific Coast Mountains: Washington 17 3 7 0 0 1 1 10 3 4 7 2003 Oregon 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 1992 California 11 7 9 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1922 Rocky Mountains: Idaho 6 5 5 2 0 3 4 5 5 a 31 b 16 2005 Montana 6 1 1 0 4 9 39 14 c 121 d 149 e 187 2005 Wyoming 10 6 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 f 12 2005 Utah 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1921 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1972 Colorado 22 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1919 New Mexico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1860 Central Great Plains: North Dakota 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1962 Nebraska 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1887 Great Lakes: Minnesota 6 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1899 Wisconsin 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 1800s Michigan 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868 Upper Midwest: Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1960 Indiana 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1943 Northeast: Pennsylvania 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None New York 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1811 New Hampshire 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None Vermont 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None Maine 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None a Includes 16 initial capture locations obtained from 1992 to 1994 during a radiotelemetry study. b Includes 3 initial capture locations obtained in 1995 during a radiotelemetry study and 4 initial capture locations obtained from 2003 to 2005 during a radiotelemetry study. c Includes 94 harvest records from 1974 to 1980 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and 24 wolverines that were radiocollared by Hornocker and Hash

(1981)in northwestern MT from 1972 to 1977. d Includes 146 harvest records from 1981 to 1994 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. e Includes 115 harvest records from 1995 to 2004 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and 49 initial capture locations obtained from 2002 to 2005 during radiotelemetry studies. f Includes 9 initial capture locations obtained from 1998 to 2005 during telemetry studies. g Jackson

(1954)found 2 wolverine specimens in a cave in southwestern WI in 1920 that he estimated had been in the deposit for > 50 years. *Northeast and Upper Midwest* . The low number of records and the scattered nature of their distribution suggest that wolverines were likely to have been occasional transients to the area and not present as a reproducing population after 1800. *Great Lakes* . The low number of verifiable records in this area of relatively high human population density (compared with, for example, the Rocky Mountains) suggests that wolverines did not exist in this area as a viable population after 1900. Widely scattered records generally before 1900, with an occasional record after that year, suggest that if a reproducing population existed in the Great Lakes, it predated 1900, and that post-1900 records represent dispersal from a receding Canadian population. Wolverine distribution in Ontario, Canada appears to have receded north from the Great Lakes region beginning in the 1800s, and currently wolverines occupy only the northern portion of the province, a distance of over 650 km (404 mi) from the U.S. border (COSEWIC 2003, p. 9). The pattern of declining numbers of records for the Great Lakes region illustrated in Aubry et al. (2007, p. 2152) is consistent with what would be expected if those records were of dispersing individuals from a Canadian population that receded progressively farther north into Canada after 1900. *Central Great Plains* . The lack of verifiable and mappable records from the Great Plains States leaves little evidence on which to determine if reproducing populations of wolverines ever inhabited this area. Thirty-five of 36 records from North Dakota are from the journals of a single fur trader, and it is not clear that the records represent actual collection localities or localities where trades or shipments occurred (Aubry et al. 2007, entire). The habitat relationships of wolverines include the Hudsonian life zone, subarctic, and tundra with persistent spring snow, all features that the Central Great Plains lack and lacked throughout the historic period (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151-2152). Therefore, it is unlikely that these records represent established wolverine individuals or populations, or that this area contained wolverine habitat. *Rocky Mountains* . Five Rocky Mountains States (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah) as a region contain numerous wolverine records over all time intervals. Mappable records appear to coalesce around several areas that may have been population centers, such as central Colorado, the Greater Yellowstone Area, and northern Idaho/northwestern Montana. The large number of verifiable and mappable records for this region, along with the suggestion of population centers or strongholds, suggests that wolverines existed in reproducing populations throughout much of the Rocky Mountains during the historical interval. During the recent interval, the lack of records for Colorado and Utah suggest that the southern Rocky Mountain population of wolverines was extirpated by the middle 1900s, concurrent with widespread systematic predator control by government agencies and livestock interests. The northern Rocky Mountain population (north of Wyoming) was reduced to historic lows during the early 1900s, and then increased dramatically in the second half of the 1900s as predator control efforts subsided and trapping regulations became more restrictive (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2151). This increase may indicate that the population rebounded from historic lows in this period, but we cannot rule out that the apparent rebound is an artifact of improved monitoring of wolverine trapping by government agencies. Wolverine records from 1995 to 2005 show that wolverine populations currently exist in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ongoing legal trapping in Montana removes an average of 10.5 individuals from this population each year (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2007, p. 2). During all time periods, populations of wolverines in British Columbia and Alberta may have been a source of surplus wolverines during population lows (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 18-19). *Pacific Coast* . Historically, records from Washington, Oregon, and California clearly coalesced around two population centers in the North Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. Records from these areas are separated by a lack of historic records in southern Oregon and northern California, indicating that the distribution of wolverines in this area is best represented by two disjunct populations rather than a continuous peninsular extension from Canada. This conclusion is supported by genetic data indicating that the Sierra Nevada and North Cascades wolverines were separated for at least 2,000 years prior to extirpation of the Sierra Nevada population (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2174). One Sierra Nevada record exists from after 1930, indicating that this population was extirpated in the first half of the 1900s concurrent with widespread systematic predator control programs. Records from the North Cascades continue into present times in relatively small numbers, indicating a population persists in this area. Records from British Columbia, Canada indicate that the North Cascades population may be connected with, and possibly dependent on, the larger Canadian population for viability over the long term. Summary of Wolverine Distribution Patterns in the Contiguous United States Historical wolverine records were found across the northern tier of the lower 48 States with peninsular extensions south into the southern Rockies and the Sierra Nevada (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). Currently, wolverines appear to be distributed in two regions in the lower 48 States: the North Cascades in Washington (and possibly Oregon), and the northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Wolverines were extirpated in historical times from the Sierra Nevada and the southern Rocky Mountains. We conclude that the current range of the species in the contiguous United States includes the North Cascades Mountains and the northern Rocky Mountains. We also conclude that wolverines likely either did not exist as established populations or were extirpated prior to settlement and the compilation of historical records in the Great Lakes region. The widely scattered records from this region are consistent with dispersing individuals from a Canadian population that receded north early in the 1800s. We cannot rule out the possibility that wolverines existed as established populations prior to the onset of trapping in this area, but we have no evidence that they did. No evidence in the historical records suggests that wolverines were ever present as established populations in the Great Plains, Midwest, or Northeast. Habitat Relationships and Wolverine Distribution in the Contiguous United States Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2152-2156) compared several broad-scale habitat types to historic, recent, and current wolverine records to investigate correlations in habitat use and determine what habitat types might best predict wolverine occurrence. Spring snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence. Snow cover during the denning period is essential for successful wolverine reproduction rangewide (Hatler 1989, p. iv; Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72; Persson 2007, p. 1). Wolverine dens tend to be in areas of high structural diversity such as logs and boulders with deep snow (Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71-72; Persson 2007, entire). Reproductive females dig deep snow tunnels to reach the protective structure of logs and boulders where they produce offspring. This behavior presumably protects the vulnerable kits from predation by large carnivores, including other wolverines (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Zyryanov 1989, pp. 3-12), but may also have physiological benefits for kits by buffering them from extreme cold, wind, and desiccation (Pullianen 1968, p. 342; Bjärvall et al. 1978, p. 23). All of the areas in the lower 48 States for which good evidence of persistent wolverine populations exists (i.e., Cascades, Sierra Nevada, northern and southern Rockies) contain large and well-distributed areas with deep snow cover that persists through the wolverine denning period (Brock et al. 2007, pp. 36-53; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154). The Great Plains, Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast lack the spring snow conditions thought to be required by wolverines for successful reproduction (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154). This finding supports the exclusion of the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast from the current range of wolverines. Whether wolverines once existed as established populations in any of these regions is unknown, but the consistent lack of deep spring snow in these regions appears to currently preclude the wolverine's presence as a reproducing population. Large areas of habitat with characteristics suitable for wolverines still occur in the southern Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada where wolverines have been extirpated (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154; Brock et al. 2007, p. 26). The occurrence data suggest that wolverine extirpations in these areas were coincidental with systematic predator eradication efforts in the early 1900s, which have been discontinued for many years. Wolverines failed to recolonize these areas since the cessation of eradication programs, by the mid-20th century, of widespread predator control efforts. This may be the result of the long dispersal distance between these areas and extant populations. We conclude that areas of wolverine historical occurrence can be placed in one of three categories:

(1)Areas where wolverines are extant as reproducing and potentially self-sustaining populations (North Cascades, northern Rocky Mountains);

(2)areas where wolverines historically existed as reproducing and potentially self-sustaining populations prior to human-induced extirpation, and where reestablishment of populations is possible given current habitat conditions and management (the Sierra Nevada mountains in California and southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado); and

(3)areas where historical presence of wolverines in reproducing and potentially self-sustaining populations is doubtful, and where the current habitat conditions preclude the establishment of populations in the foreseeable future (Great Plains, Midwest, Great Lakes, and Northeast). Further, on the basis of the historic and current records and distribution of suitable habitat, we consider the current range of wolverines to include suitable habitat in the North Cascades of Washington and Oregon, and northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Wolverine Population Estimate for the Contiguous United States Current population level and trends remain unknown because no systematic population census exists over the entire current range of the wolverine in the lower 48 States. However, we can estimate the potential carrying capacity of a population in a given region by using available data on population density, extent of habitat, and wolverine distribution. Using the projections of wolverine habitat found in Brock et al. (2007, pp. 36-53), Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming could potentially support between 499 and 655 individual wolverines (Inman 2007a, entire). This range is almost certainly an overestimate of actual wolverine numbers because it assumes that all suitable habitat is currently occupied, which is not the case (Murphy et al. 2007, p. 2). Therefore, we consider the lower range estimate of about 500 wolverines from Inman (2007a, entire) to be a reasonable estimate of the current wolverine population in the northern Rocky Mountains. The three northern Rocky Mountain States provide the bulk of currently occupied habitat in the contiguous United States, with the only additional known occupied area being the North Cascades mountain range in Washington State. The size of the North Cascades population is unknown, but is likely to be much smaller than the northern Rocky Mountain population due to the small size of the occupied area (Aubry et al. 2007, Fig. 4) and is unlikely to increase the estimated population significantly. Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

(DPS)Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we must determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five threat factors identified in the Act. Section 3(16) of the Act defines “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). To interpret and implement the distinct population segment portion of the definition of a species under the Act and Congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries) published, on February 7, 1996, an interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The policy allows for more refined application of the Act that better reflects the conservation needs of the taxon being considered, and avoids the inclusion of entities that may not warrant protection under the Act. Under our DPS Policy, three elements are considered in a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the Act. These are applied similarly for additions to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, reclassification, and removal from the Lists. They are:

(1)Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon;

(2)the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and

(3)the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., whether the population segment is, when treated as if it were a species, endangered or threatened). Discreteness refers to the isolation of a population from other members of the species, and we evaluate this based on specific criteria. If a population segment is considered discrete, we must consider whether the discrete segment is “significant” to the taxon to which it belongs by using the best available scientific information. If we determine that a population segment is discrete and significant, we then evaluate it for endangered or threatened status based on the Act's standards. The DPS evaluation in this finding concerns the segment of the wolverine species occurring within the contiguous United States, including the northern Rocky Mountains and the North Cascades. Analysis for Discreteness Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:

(1)It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or

(2)it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (see “International Border Issues” section below for a discussion of the standard set by section 4(a)(1)(D)). Below is our discussion of the wolverine population within the contiguous 48 United States relative to the discreteness criterion of the DPS policy. Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon The population of the North American wolverine addressed in the petition, and that we have evaluated for consideration as a DPS, incorporates wolverine populations south of the international border with Canada, inclusive of the States of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming (hereafter referred to as the U.S. population). The U.S. population is connected to wolverine populations in Canada and is likely dependent on them to some degree for maintaining genetic diversity. Therefore, the U.S. population of the North American wolverine does not meet the markedly separated criterion of the DPS Policy. International Border Issues A population segment of a vertebrate species may also be considered discrete if it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act is the factor concerning the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in the Act's “5-factor” analysis for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered. In assessing a population for discreteness based on delimitation by international governmental boundaries, we focus specifically on whether the factors named above are significantly different between the two countries because of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. In order to demonstrate that a population is discrete based on international governmental boundaries, it is not enough that there are differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms across the international boundary; the differences must be significant and relate to inadequate regulatory mechanisms.. Following is our assessment of the U.S. population and wolverines in the rest of North America in terms of differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. Differences in Management of Habitat Wolverine habitat in North America occurs in arctic, sub-arctic, and alpine habitats, and typically in areas remote from human presence and development. In the contiguous United States, wolverines are restricted to high-elevation habitats in the Rocky Mountains and North Cascades containing the arctic and sub-arctic conditions that they require (Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). Wolverine habitat is generally characterized by the absence of human presence and development (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1299; Banci 1994, p 114; Landa et al. 1998, p. 448; Rowland et al. 2003 p. 101; Copeland 1996, pp. 124-127; Krebs et al. 2007, pp. 2187-2190). In both the contiguous United States and Canada, little habitat management occurs in areas frequented by wolverines. Therefore, we find that there are no significant differences in management of habitat for wolverines that relate to the status of the species between the contiguous United States and Canada. Differences in Conservation Status Biological Status Throughout its current range in Canada and Alaska, wolverines exist in well-distributed, interconnected, large populations. Conversely, wolverines in the contiguous United States appear to exist in small, fragmented, and semi-isolated populations that put them at greater risk of being lost due to catastrophic or stochastic events than those populations to the north in Canada and Alaska. These risks result from three main factors:

(1)Small total population size,

(2)effective population size below that needed to maintain genetic diversity and demographic stability, and

(3)the fragmented nature of wolverine habitat in the contiguous United States that results in smaller, isolated, “sky island” patches separated by unsuitable habitats. These three factors are explained in more detail below; in addition, we summarize how they relate to section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Small Total Population Size The total population sizes for wolverines in Canada and Alaska, and the contiguous United States, differ by more than an order of magnitude. As explained in the “Wolverine Population Estimate for the Contiguous United States” section above, the contiguous U.S. population likely numbers approximately 500 adult individuals (Inman 2007a, entire). This total population is divided into smaller sub-populations inhabiting semi-isolated habitat fragments in major mountain ranges (Aubry et al. 2007, Figs. 2b, 4). The population in western Canada is much larger—estimated at 15,089 to 18,967 individuals (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22). Wolverine population size in Alaska is unknown; however, the average annual harvest consistently exceeds 500 individuals, and the population does not appear to be in decline based on trapper reports and the assessments of State wildlife managers (ADF&G 2004, entire). If the population is truly not declining, it is likely to number over 8,000 individuals, calculated using demographic data in Lofroth and Ott (2007, pp. 2196-2198), and assuming sustainable annual harvest of 6 percent (if 500 represents 6 percent of the population, total population equals 8,333). Wolverine populations number 2,089 to 3,567 in British Columbia and 1,500 to 2,000 in Alberta (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), the two provinces immediately adjacent to the contiguous U.S. population. Small populations, such as the contiguous U.S. population, face higher extinction risk than large ones such as the Canada and Alaska population (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 762). Effective Population Size Population ecologists use the concept of a population's “effective” size as a measure of the proportion of the actual population that contributes to future generations (for a review of effective population size, see Schwartz et al. 1998, entire). Effective population size may be less than actual population size if the population has any of the following characteristics:

(1)Unequal sex ratio,

(2)individuals have a disproportionate probability of contributing offspring to the next generation,

(3)population size fluctuates over time, and

(4)generations overlap such that individuals may reproduce in more than one generation. Effective population size is important because it determines rates of loss of genetic variation, fixation of deleterious alleles, and the rate of inbreeding. Populations with small effective population sizes show reductions in population growth rates and increases in extinction probabilities (Leberg 1990, p. 194; Jimenez et al. 1994, pp. 272-273; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; Saccheri et al. 1998, p. 492; Reed and Bryant 2000, p. 11; Schwartz and Mills 2005, p. 419; Hogg et al. 2006, pp. 1495, 1498; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 338-342). Franklin (1980, as cited in Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 359) proposed an empirically based rule suggesting that the short-term effective population size should not be less than 50, and the long-term effective population size should not be less than 500 (for appropriate use of this rule and its limitations, see Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 359-360). There are two main ways to estimate the effective population size of populations: demographic and genetic. Demographically-based methods incorporate life history parameters, such as unequal sex ratios, fluctuations in population size over time, and variance in reproductive success, into abundance and demographic models of a species. Genetically-based methods use multi-locus genetic data to estimate an effective population size (Tallmon et al. 2004, p. 979; Waples 2006, pp. 171-178; Tallmon et al. 2007, entire). Effective population for wolverines in the Rocky Mountains averaged 39 (Schwartz 2007, entire). This effective population size is exceptionally low (Schwartz 2007, entire), and is below what is required for short-term maintenance of genetic diversity. The concern with the low effective population size is highlighted by recent research determining that at least 400 breeding pairs would be necessary to sustain the long-term genetic viability of the contiguous U.S. wolverine population (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 197). However, the entire population is estimated to consist of only 500 individuals (Inman 2007a, entire), with a substantial number of them being nonbreeding subadults. Furthermore, the contiguous U.S. population appears to be split into at least five smaller subpopulations (North Cascades, Crazybelts, Idaho, Greater Yellowstone Area, and northern Montana) which are semi-isolated from each other, meaning that genetic exchange does not occur frequently enough to prevent genetic drift and loss of genetic diversity (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 206). Genetic studies have highlighted the essential role that genetic exchange plays in maintaining genetic diversity in small wolverine populations. Genetic drift has occurred in the remaining populations in the contiguous United States where wolverines contain four of nine haplotypes found in Canadian populations (Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et al. 2003, pp. 2914-2915; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208; Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2176). The reduced number of haplotypes indicates not only that genetic drift is occurring, but also that there is some level of genetic separation; if these populations were freely interbreeding, they would share more haplotypes (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 205). The reduction of haplotypes is likely a result of the fragmented nature of wolverine habitat in the United States and is consistent with an emerging pattern of reduced genetic variation at the southern edge of the range documented in a suite of boreal forest carnivores (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2177). As stated previously, the low effective population size and accompanying reduction in genetic diversity is a concern because populations with low genetic diversity are more vulnerable to extinction. No effective population size estimate exists for populations in Canada or Alaska. However, none of the Canadian or Alaskan populations tested show signs of genetic drift or inbreeding (Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 209), and all Canadian and Alaskan populations contain higher genetic variation than the U.S. northern Rocky Mountain populations (Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. 341). In addition, because of the large and contiguous nature of the populations (based on habitat contiguity and genetic similarity, see “Habitat Availability and Connectivity” below) (Kyle and Strobeck 2002, p. 1146; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 209), and the relatively high genetic diversity in Canada and Alaska, we conclude that the effective population size is large enough to not be a cause for conservation concern. This information indicates that the populations in Alaska and Canada are less vulnerable to extinction pressures associated with a low effective population size. The small effective population size in the contiguous U.S. wolverine population has led to inbreeding and consequent loss of genetic diversity (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208). Over time, if the current effective population size remains stable, the population will be at risk of extinction due to inbreeding depression or stochastic demographic effects (Frankham 1995, p. 795). The small effective population size in the contiguous United States contrasts with the situation in Canada and Alaska where wolverines are relatively abundant and exist in habitats with a high level of connectivity (COSEWIC 2003, p. 8; Slough 2007, p. 78). Due to the lack of inbreeding reported for these populations, it is likely that effective population sizes are much larger than in the contiguous United States. Although these differences in biological conservation status between the United States and Canadian wolverine populations exist, they are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). Habitat Availability and Connectivity Wolverine habitat in the contiguous United States consists of small, isolated “islands” of high-elevation, alpine habitats containing sufficient depth of snow during the denning period, separated from each other by low valleys of unsuitable habitats (Copeland 2007, Map 1). The large distances between suitable wolverine habitats result in wolverines existing in an archipelago of semi-isolated, suitable habitats near mountain tops, surrounded by a sea of unsuitable habitats. Wolverines occupy habitat in a high-elevation band from 2,100 m to 2,600 m (6,888 ft to 8,528 ft) in the mountains of the lower 48 States. The intervening valleys in this area range from 975 m to 1,500 m (3,198 ft to 4,920 ft), and are unsuitable for long-term wolverine habitat because they do not have the snow conditions or other habitat features required by wolverines (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151-2153). The low population densities and reduced genetic diversity of wolverines in the contiguous United States means that, to avoid further inbreeding or local extirpation due to demographic stochasticity, regular exchange of individual wolverines between islands of habitat must occur. Intermountain valleys are increasingly the sites of human residential and commercial developments and transportation corridors, and represent semi-permeable barriers to wolverines. Although crossings of valleys, primarily by males (e.g., Packila et al. 2007, Fig. 2, 3), have been documented, these crossings are not common, and movements within valleys occur less frequently than movements in suitable wolverine habitats (Packila et al. 2007, p. 110). Wolverine populations in the Canadian Rockies also exist on habitat islands, but the islands are much larger (Copeland 2007, p. 24) and host larger populations so that exchange of individuals is likely to be less critical for short-term maintenance of genetic diversity and demographic stability. Farther north into Canada and Alaska, the climate becomes progressively colder and persistent spring snow and Hudsonian/arctic/sub-arctic habitat associations occur progressively lower on mountain slopes, until near the Arctic Circle where these conditions are found at sea level. Wolverines track these latitudinal and elevation gradients by inhabiting progressively lower elevations in northern Canada and Alaska until valley bottom habitats become suitable habitat and wolverines exist over large expanses of contiguous habitat in well-connected populations (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 7-8). In the far north of Canada, wolverine habitat extends into low-elevation valleys and the vast expanses of low-elevation boreal forest and tundra. Although these differences in biological conservation status between the United States and Canadian wolverine populations exist, they are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). In the contiguous United States, wolverines must cross unsuitable habitats to achieve connectivity among subpopulations, which is required to avert further genetic drift and continued loss of genetic diversity (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208; Copeland 2007, entire; Brock et al. 2007, pp. 36-53). The highly fragmented nature of the habitat in the contiguous United States contributes to the low effective population size for wolverines in this area by dividing the population among semi-isolated subpopulations, making the continued persistence of the population precarious relative to the Canadian population. Canadian habitats are generally contiguous blocks that have few or no impediments to demographic or genetic connectivity. The fragmented nature and distribution of wolverine habitat in the lower United States results in a contiguous U.S. population that is more vulnerable to extirpation because of lack of connectivity between subpopulations, which contributes to inbreeding and reduces the chances of recolonization of habitat patches after local extinction. Although these differences in biological conservation status between the United States and Canadian wolverine populations exist, they are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). Legal Status Conveyed by National, State and Provincial Governments The United States currently confers no Federal status on the wolverine. Each State regulates the species relative to its existing populations. In Washington, the wolverine is listed as State Endangered (State of Washington 2007, p.3); Idaho and Wyoming designate it as a protected nongame species (State of Idaho 2006, p. 9; State of Wyoming 1996, pp. 151-154); and in Montana it is a regulated furbearer (State of Montana 2007, p. 2). Oregon, while currently not considered to have any individuals other than possible unsuccessful dispersers, has a closed season on trapping of wolverines (State of Oregon 2006, p. 2). The Canadian government has listed its eastern population of wolverine in Quebec and Labrador, where it may be extirpated due to trapping and hunting, and declining caribou herds, as Endangered under the Species at Risk Act

(SARA)( *www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca* ). Because wolverines in this area appear to have been extirpated since the early 1900s, we do not consider this area to be in the wolverine's current range, and thus its status is not relevant to the question of whether significant differences in status exist between Canada and the contiguous 48 United States. The Western population of wolverine occurs in eight Canadian Provinces, two of which (British Columbia and Alberta) are contiguous to the lower 48 United States. This population in Canada has no status under SARA, but has a designation of Special Concern (Vulnerable) under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) ( *http://www.speciActtrisk.gc.ca* ). British Columbia and Alberta have Provincial species conservation lists, which are priority-setting tools for establishing baseline ranks and conservation activities (Province of British Columbia 2002, p. 1). Both Provinces include the wolverine on their provincial “blue list,” indicating that it may be at risk (Petersen 1997, p. 1), except on Vancouver Island where the wolverine is possibly extirpated and is “red listed” (threatened, endangered, or candidate; not harvested) (Lofroth and Ott 2007, p. 2193; Province of British Columbia 2002, p. 2). Because British Columbia and Alberta are contiguous to a larger, and currently more robust, portion of the wolverine's range in northwestern Canada, documented declines in wolverine populations in the southern portions of both Provinces have not raised the status of the species to a level of concern that would result in its consideration under SARA (Lofroth and Krebs 2007, pp. 2164-2165; Lofroth and Ott 2007, p. 2193; Petersen 1997, pp. 4-5). Summary of Differences in Conservation Status As described above, the wolverine has a range of legal statuses under State regulations in the United States and Canadian Provincial designations. The differences in legal conservation status conveyed by the States and Provinces are mixed in each country, but do not appear significantly different from each other. Some differences exist in terms of biological conservation status related to small and effective population sizes, and habitat availability and connectivity. When evaluating whether these differences are significant enough to use the international boundary under the discreteness criterion, our policy directs that these differences must be significant in light of 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 FR 4725). We have concluded that the differences in biological conservation status between the United States and Canadian wolverine populations are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because these differences appear to be a result of the relatively small and patchy distribution of wolverine habitat at the southern terminus of its range in the contiguous United States rather than as a result of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we determine that the contiguous United States population of wolverine is not discrete due to differences in conservation status. Differences in Control of Exploitation and Regulatory Mechanisms Contiguous U.S. populations are largely not harvested, with the exception being an average of 10.5 wolverines taken a year in Montana. In Canada and Alaska, harvest is widespread within the current range. Although we do not have comprehensive numbers for the annual wolverine harvest in Canada, we have estimated a total annual harvest of 719 animals (see Table 2) based on the best information available to us. The numbers below are likely underestimates because they are based on reported harvests, which in Canadian territories likely accounts for only one-fifth to one-third of the total harvest because of unreported harvest by local communities (Melchoir et al. 1987 as cited in Banci 1994, p. 101). Table 2.—Estimated Annual Wolverine Harvest in Canada Province or territory Estimated annual harvest Source British Columbia 175 Lofroth and Ott, 2007, pp. 2196-2197. Alberta 37 Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14. Saskatchewan 10 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Manitoba 48 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Ontario 8 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Yukon 150 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Northwest Territories 209 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.* Nunavut 82 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.^ Total 719 *Corrected to adjust for majority being unreported in pelt production statistics. ‸ Corrected using Dumond and Krizan 2002 as cited in COSEWIC 2003 p. 17. Based on these harvest numbers and a minimum population estimate of 15,089 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), we conservatively estimate that harvest in Canada is a minimum of 4.7 percent of the population annually. Human-caused mortality of wolverines is likely additive to natural mortality due to the low reproductive rate and relatively long life expectancy of wolverines (Krebs et al. 2004, p. 499; Lofroth and Ott 2007, pp. 2197-2198; Squires et al. 2007, pp. 2218-2219). An estimated 15,089 to 18,967 wolverines occur in Canada where suitable habitat is plentiful (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 14-22). Because of this abundance of habitat, protection and intensive management are not necessary to conserve wolverines in western Canada. This situation contrasts with the situation in the contiguous United States, where habitat is fragmented and limited to higher elevations over portions of four States (Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). Of the four lower 48 States where the wolverine currently persists, trapping and hunting of the species is prohibited in all except Montana where the bulk of the species resides. Montana trapping and hunting regulations define the wolverine as a furbearer, and establish a 2.5-month season for both hunting and trapping that runs from December 1 to February 15. A quota of 1 animal per person, up to a total of 12 wolverines per season across all Wolverine Management Units is established; the quota limits the number of wolverines that may be taken in each of three Management Units so that take of animals is distributed across drainages (State of Montana 2007, pp. 2-3, 5, 8). Across the border from the U.S. wolverine population, the Canadian Province of British Columbia defines the wolverine as a commercial furbearer, and assigns it a Regulated Harvest status as a Class 2 Species under its Fur Management Program, which means it is regulated regionally in consultation with local trappers. No quotas are established, but reporting and inspection of carcasses is required in most regions of the Province. The trapping season is open for 3 to 4 months, from November 1 through January or February, depending on the region (Province of British Columbia 2007, pp. 90-96). Approximately 175 wolverines are harvested each year under this system (out of a total estimated population of 3,532), equating to a harvest of 5 percent (Lofroth and Ott 2007, pp. 2196-2197). However, as stated above, in Canada, due to local use, a significant portion of the harvest may go unreported. The Canadian Province of Alberta has regulated wolverine trapping since 1989. An average of 37 animals per year is harvested within the Province (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14). Trapping seasons are established for Fur Management Zones

(FMZs)within the Province and run for 3 months, from November 1 to January 31. Quotas are designated in 6 FMZs, and establish an annual trap limit of 1 wolverine per trapper in each Wildlife Management Unit (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 8). Two additional FMZs, that comprise a large area of southeastern Alberta, are closed to trapping (Province of Alberta 2006, pp. 8, 11, 14); however, these areas are outside the species' normal range (Petersen 1997, p. 5) and, although they are adjacent to the United States, are not adjacent to wolverine populations in the United States. The regulation of exploitation of wolverines is mixed within its current range in the contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada. Controls on the exploitation of wolverine exist in the contiguous United States, with an average of 10.5 wolverine taken in Montana (2.1 percent of the estimated U.S. population of 500), the only State allowing trapping or hunting of wolverine. In Alaska, an average of 500 wolverines are harvested per year from a population of unknown size (assuming a 6 percent harvest rate, the population would be approximately 8,000 individuals). In Canada, an average of 719 wolverines are harvested per year (4.7 percent of a population of approximately 15,000; see table 2). We conclude that differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms between the contiguous United States and Canada are not significantly different. When evaluating whether differences are significant enough to use the international boundary under the discreteness criterion, our policy directs that these differences must be significant in light of 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 **Federal Register** 4725). We conclude that the differences in control of exploitation between the United States and Canadian wolverine populations are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because in both countries exploitation appears to be adequately regulated according to what the overall population can sustain. This conclusion is supported by the fact that wolverine populations appear to be able to sustain the current rate of mortality due to trapping and hunting (approximately 6 percent in Alaska, 4.7 percent throughout western Canada, and 2.1 percent in the contiguous United States). Therefore, we determine that the contiguous United States population of wolverine is not discrete due to differences in control of exploitation. Summary for Discreteness The international boundary between Canada and the United States currently leads to some differences in the control of exploitation and conservation status of the wolverine. However, we find that these differences between Canada and the contiguous United States do not result in significant differences in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because they are not the result of inadequate regulatory mechanisms that place the U.S. population at risk. Therefore, we have determined that the U.S. portion of the range does not meet the discreteness criteria in our DPS Policy (61 FR 4725). The Service finds that the existing data do not indicate that North American wolverines in the contiguous United States are “markedly separated” from those in Canada and Alaska. Consequently, the Service is unable to conclude at this time that the petitioned entity is discrete according to our DPS policy. Therefore, the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States does not qualify as a distinct population segment and is not a listable entity under the Act. Because we have determined that the population of the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States is not discrete and therefore not a DPS and a listable entity under the Act, we do not need to consider whether the population is significant with regards to the DPS policy or the conservation status pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Significant Portion of the Range Analysis Because the petitioned action was to list the wolverine in the contiguous United States, after determining that the wolverine in this portion of its range is not a distinct population segment (DPS), we analyzed whether it would constitute a significant potion of the range of the North American subspecies. On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range’ ” (DOI 2007). A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability of the species to persist. In determining whether the petitioned entity warranted listing as threatened or endangered throughout a significant portion of its range, we first determine whether there is substantial information indicating that

(1)the petitioned entity constitutes a significant portion of the range, and

(2)the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether the species is threatened or endangered in any significant portion. If we determine that a portion of the range is not significant, we do not determine whether the species is threatened or endangered there. The terms “resiliency,” “redundancy,” and “representation” are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of the range. Resiliency of a species allows it to recover from periodic disturbances. A species will likely be more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed throughout its range in a way that captures the environmental variability available. A portion of the range of a species may make a meaningful contribution to the resiliency of the species if the area is relatively large and contains particularly high-quality habitat, or if its location or characteristics make it less susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the range. When evaluating whether or how a portion of the range contributes to resiliency of the species, we evaluate the historical value of the portion and how frequently the portion is used by the species, if possible. The range portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons; for instance, it may contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This concept does not mean that any portion that provides redundancy is per se a significant portion of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the range so that random perturbations in the system only act on a few populations. Therefore, we examine each area based on whether that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the conservation of the species. Adequate representation ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. Specifically, we evaluate a range portion to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements. Because the petition to list the wolverine only specified the portion of the subspecies' range in the contiguous United States, we assessed whether this portion is important to the conservation of the subspecies because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For resiliency, we evaluated whether the contiguous U.S. wolverine population occupies relatively large or particularly high-quality habitat, or if its location or characteristics make it less susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the range. We determined that the contiguous U.S. wolverine population constitutes a relatively small area of patchily distributed lower-quality habitat when compared to the *Gulo gulo luscus* range overall. Additionally, we find that the characteristics of the contiguous U.S. wolverine population make it more susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the range because of the isolated patchy “sky island” habitats at the southern terminus of its range. Additionally, we evaluated the historical value of the contiguous U.S. portion of the wolverine range and how frequently the portion is used by the species, and whether the portion contains an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. We found that the contiguous U.S. wolverine population does not meaningfully contribute to resiliency because the habitats necessary for breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering are found distributed throughout its range and are not solely found in the contiguous United States. Therefore, we conclude that the contiguous U.S. wolverine population does not contribute meaningfully to the resiliency of *G. g. luscus* . In analyzing redundancy, we evaluated whether the contiguous U.S. portion of the wolverine range is necessary to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. We also examined the contiguous U.S. portion of the wolverine range to determine whether that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the conservation of the species. In North America, wolverines occur within a wide variety of arctic, sub-arctic and alpine habitats, primarily boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains throughout Alaska and Canada, with two small peninsulas of habitat extending into the North Cascades and the Northern Rocky Mountains in the contiguous United States. The portion of the range that extends into the contiguous United States is small in relation to the entire range of the subspecies. Additionally, the actual area amount of habitat in the contiguous United States is more fragmented in nature than habitat found elsewhere throughout the range, which results in a smaller proportion of actual habitat in the contiguous U.S. portion than what is generally indicated on “range” maps (see “ *Habitat Availability and Connectivity* ” section above). Finally, a small proportion of the total wolverine population occurs in the contiguous United States. Assuming 8,333 wolverine occur in Alaska (as described in the control of exploitation section above), 15,089 wolverine occur in Canada, and 500 wolverine occur in the contiguous United States, the contiguous United States portion accounts for only 2 percent of the entire *G. g. luscus* population. Thus, we determined that the contiguous U.S. wolverine population does not significantly contribute to the redundancy of *G. g. luscus* . In determining whether the contiguous U.S. wolverine population contributed to representation, we evaluated whether it contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. Adequate representation ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. Wolverines in the contiguous United States contain a subset of the genetic haplotypes found in the Canadian populations, and therefore do not represent a unique population. Thus, the species does not meaningfully contribute to representation of *Gulo gulo luscus* . The populations in Canada and Alaska are relatively large and contiguous, and are not dependent on connectivity to the contiguous U.S. population. Based on the discussion above, we determined that the contiguous United States portion of the current range of the North American wolverine is not significant to the *Gulo gulo luscus* subspecies, and therefore does not warrant further consideration to determine if it is a significant portion of the range that is threatened or endangered. In addition, we find that historical habitat in the contiguous United States that is no longer occupied would not raise the status of this portion of the range as being significant to the subspecies. Finding We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding threats to the contiguous United States population of the wolverine. We reviewed the petition, and available published and unpublished scientific and commercial information. This 12-month finding reflects and incorporates information that we received during the public comment period or that we obtained through consultation, literature research, and field visits. On the basis of this review, we have determined that the contiguous United States population of the North American wolverine does not constitute a distinct population segment

(DPS)under the Act and therefore a listable entity unto itself. We also find that the contiguous United States population of the North American wolverine is not a significant portion of the range of the North American subspecies and does not warrant further consideration under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition to list the North American wolverine that occurs in the contiguous United States is not warranted for listing. References Cited A complete list of all references cited is available upon request from the Supervisor, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this document is staff of the Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Ste. 145, Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (also 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 28, 2008. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-4197 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 RIN 0648-XF03 Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Reclassify the Loggerhead Turtle in the Western North Atlantic Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request for information and comments; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects the fax number in the ADDRESSES section of a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** of March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marta Nammack at 301-713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In proposed rule FR Doc. E8-4231, beginning on page 11849 in the issue of March 5, 2008, make the following correction, in the Preamble. On page 11849, column two, line 8 of the ADDRESSES section, replace “978-281-9394” with “301-713-0376”. Dated: March 6, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1000 Filed 3-6-08; 2:54 pm]

Connectionstraces to 32

Traces to 32 documents