Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 3379

rules is a VOC, and the provisions in Unfunded Mandates Reform Act National Technology Transfer these rules are enforceable and result in Advancement Act Because this rule proposes to approve specified VOC reductions dependent Section 12(d) of the National upon the specific type of operation. pre-existing requirements under State law, and does not impose any additional Technology Transfer and Advancement IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? enforceable duty beyond that required Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s by State law, it does not contain any technical standards that are developed amendment to its SIP consisting of an unfunded mandate or significantly or or adopted by voluntary consensus to amendment to 326 IAC 8–1–6, new uniquely affect small governments, as carry out policy objectives, so long as facilities; general reduction described in the Unfunded Mandates such standards are not inconsistent with requirements. This rule exempts boat Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). manufacturers subject to 326 IAC 20–48, applicable law or otherwise impractical. NESHAPS for boat manufacturing, or Executive Order 13132: Federalism In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s reinforced plastics composites role is to approve State choices, manufacturers subject to 326 IAC 20–56, This action also does not have provided that they meet the criteria of NESHAPS for reinforced plastics Federalism implications because it does the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior composites production facilities, from not have substantial direct effects on the existing requirement for the State to use the requirement to do a BACT analysis, States, on the relationship between the voluntary consensus standards, EPA has for the purposes of 326 IAC 8–1–6, national government and the States, or no authority to disapprove a SIP provided they comply with the on the distribution of power and submission for failure to use such applicable NESHAPS. responsibilities among the various standards, and it would thus be However, any approval of this levels of government, as specified in inconsistent with applicable law for exemption to 326 IAC 8–1–6 would not Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, EPA to use voluntary consensus address (or take action on) whether the August 10, 1999). This action merely standards in place of a program boat manufacturing or reinforced proposes to approve a state rule submission that otherwise satisfies the plastics composites production implementing a Federal standard, and provisions of the Clean Air Act. NESHAPS represent reasonably does not alter the relationship or the Therefore, the requirements of section available control technology, which is distribution of power and 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. the level of control required by EPA for responsibilities established in the Clean List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 existing sources in ozone nonattainment Air Act. areas. In addition, any approval would Environmental protection, Air not address (or take action on) whether Executive Order 13175: Consultation pollution control, Incorporation by these NESHAPS regulations satisfy and Coordination With Indian Tribal reference, Intergovernmental relations, BACT as required by 326 IAC 2–2 Governments Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and (prevention of significant deterioration) recordkeeping requirements, Volatile or lowest achievable emission rate as This proposed rule also does not have organic compounds. tribal implications because it will not required by 326 IAC 2–3 (nonattainment Dated: January 18, 2007. new source review). have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship Bharat Mathur, VI. Statutory and Executive Order between the Federal Government and Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Reviews Indian tribes, or on the distribution of [FR Doc. E7–1099 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am] Executive Order 12866: Regulatory power and responsibilities between the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Planning and Review Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Executive Order 13045: Protection of Fish and Wildlife Service and, therefore, is not subject to review Children From Environmental Health by the Office of Management and and Safety Risks 50 CFR Part 17 Budget. This proposed rule also is not subject Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Paperwork Reduction Act to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of and Plants; Anticipated Delisting of This proposed rule does not impose Children from Environmental Health Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk- an information collection burden under Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, vetch) From the List of Endangered the provisions of the Paperwork April 23, 1997), because it is not and Threatened Plants; Prudency Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 economically significant. Determination for Designation of et seq.). Critical Habitat Executive Order 13211: Actions That Regulatory Flexibility Act Significantly Affect Energy Supply, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, This proposed action merely proposes Distribution, or Use Interior. to approve state law as meeting Federal ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed requirements and imposes no additional Because it is not a ‘‘significant rulemaking; notice of critical habitat requirements beyond those imposed by regulatory action’’ under Executive prudency determination. State law. Accordingly, the Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory Administrator certifies that this action,’’ this action is also not subject to SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and proposed rule will not have a significant Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Wildlife Service (Service), announce our economic impact on a substantial Concerning Regulations That intention to conduct rulemaking under number of small entities under the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the Endangered Species Act (Act) of Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 1973 as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 22, 2001). et seq.) for the purpose of removing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:34 Jan 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM 25JAP1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 3380 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk- rulemaking. We encourage interested message, please submit your comments vetch) from the List of Endangered and parties to provide comments on A. in writing using one of the alternate Threatened Plants in the near future. desereticus to the Project Leader, Utah methods described above. Specifically, we intend to propose Ecological Services Office (see Background delisting A. desereticus because threats ADDRESSES). We will base rulemaking to the species as identified in the final on a review of the best scientific and Astragalus desereticus is a perennial, listing rule (64 FR 56590, October 20, commercial information available, herbaceous, subacaulescent (almost 1999) are not as significant as earlier including all such information received stemless) plant (Barneby 1989) in the believed and are managed such that the during the public comment period. legume family. It is approximately 2–6 species is not likely to become in danger Information regarding the following inches (in) (5.1–15.2 centimeters (cm)) of extinction throughout all or a topics would be particularly useful: (1) in height, and has pinnately compound significant portion of its range in the Species biology, including but not leaves (feather-like arrangement with foreseeable future. Upon delisting, A. limited to population trends, leaflets displayed on a central stalk) that desereticus would be managed pursuant distribution, abundance, demographics, are 2–4 inches (in) (5.1–10.2 cm) long to a Conservation Agreement among the genetics, and taxonomy; (2) habitat with 11–17 leaflets. The flower petals Service and Utah State agencies. conditions, including but not limited to are whitish except for pinkish wings In response to a stipulated settlement amount, distribution, and suitability; (3) and a lilac keel-tip, and seed pods are agreement we have reconsidered conservation measures that have been 0.4–0.8 in (1.0–2.0 cm) long and densely whether designating critical habitat for implemented that benefit the species; covered with lustrous hairs. Astragalus desereticus would be (4) threat status and trends; and (5) Astragalus desereticus habitat is prudent based on this species’ current other new information or data. narrowly restricted to steep, sandy status. We have determined that such a Information submitted should be bluffs (Barneby 1989) associated with designation is not prudent because, as supported by documentation such as south and west facing slopes (Franklin described in this advanced notice, we maps, bibliographic references, methods 1990) within the Moroni Formation at believe that designating critical habitat used to gather and analyze the data, elevations between 5,400 and 5,600 feet would not be beneficial to the species and/or copies of any pertinent (1,646 and 1,707 meters (m)) (Franklin (50 CFR 424.12). This is because no area publications, reports, or letters by 1990). The current known range of A. meets the definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ knowledgeable sources. desereticus is limited to the Birdseye (i.e., there are no areas essential to the Our practice is to make comments, population (Stone 1992) which occupies an area approximately 1 mile (mi) (1.6 conservation of the species which including names and home addresses of kilometers (km)) long by 0.3 mi (0.5 km) require special management respondents, available for public review wide, or about 345 acres (ac) (139.6 considerations, and protections afforded during regular business hours. hectares (ha)), in the Thistle Creek by the species’ current listing status Individual respondents may request that watershed immediately east of Birdseye, appear to be no longer necessary). we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will Utah. Approximately 230 ac (93 ha) are DATES: Comments and information must honor to the extent allowable by law. owned by the Utah Division of Wildlife be submitted before March 26, 2007. There also may be circumstances in Resources (UDWR) in the Birdseye Unit ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, which we would withhold from the of the Northwest Manti Wildlife you may submit your comments and rulemaking record a respondent’s Management Area (WMA), 25 ac (10.1 materials by any one of the following identity, as allowable by law. If you ha) are owned by the Utah Department methods: wish us to withhold your name and/or of Transportation (UDOT), and 90 ac (1) You may mail or hand-deliver address, you must state this (36.4 ha) are on private lands owned by written comments and information to prominently at the beginning of your several landowners. The WMA extends Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological comment, but you should be aware that across the northern and central portions Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the Service may be required to disclose of the population. The mineral rights Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite your name and address pursuant to the under the WMA and the majority of the 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. Freedom of Information Act. However, mineral rights under the private lands (2) You may electronic mail (e-mail) we will not consider anonymous are owned by the Utah School and your comments to comments. We will make all Institutional Trust Lands [email protected]. For submissions from organizations or Administration (SITLA). directions on how to submit comments businesses, and from individuals Franklin (1990) estimated the by e-mail, see the ‘‘Public Comments identifying themselves as population in May 1990 at fewer than Solicited’’ section of this notice. In the representatives or officials of 5,000 plants. Stone (1992) resurveyed event that our Internet connection is not organizations or businesses, available the population in late May 1992 and functional, please submit your for public inspection in their entirety. reported more than 10,000 plants, comments by mail, hand delivery, or fax Comments and materials received will indicating that a substantial seed bank to 801–975–3331. be available for public inspection, by existed in the soil. He reported that the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: appointment, during normal business northern portion of the population Larry England, U.S. Fish and Wildlife hours at the address indicated in the appeared the same as in 1990, but high Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite ADDRESSES section. densities of seedlings and young milk- 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119 Please submit electronic comments in vetch plants occurred locally in the (telephone 801–975–3330; fax 801–975– an ASCII or Microsoft Word file and southern portion. Observations of 3331; e-mail [email protected]). avoid the use of any special characters Astragalus desereticus on the WMA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: or any form of encryption. Also, please show that the species population include ‘‘Attn: Astragalus desereticus’’ increased by 31 percent from 2000–2005 Public Comments Solicited and your name and return address in (Astragalus desereticus monitoring plot This notice announces the opening of your e-mail message. If you do not data conducted by the Service, 2000 and a 60-day comment period on our receive a confirmation from the system 2005, USFWS, Salt Lake City, Utah; advanced notice of proposed that we have received your e-mail hereinafter cited as Service 2005).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:34 Jan 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM 25JAP1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 3381

Previous Federal Actions recreational, scientific, or educational minimize impacts to Astragalus Astragalus desereticus was listed as a purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) desereticus individuals. In addition, threatened species due to small inadequacy of existing regulatory mineral development does not appear to population size, restricted distribution, mechanisms; or (E) other natural or be a significant threat because SITLA development, cattle grazing (including manmade factors affecting its continued owns the mineral rights on most of the erosion and trampling), and impacts to existence. A delisting must be occupied habitat. These mineral rights pollinator habitat (64 FR 56590, October supported by the best scientific and have not been leased (Durrant 2006), 20, 1999). At the time of listing, we commercial data available to the and SITLA has agreed to work with Secretary after conducting a review of lessees to ensure disturbances to determined that designating critical the status of the species. A species may occupied habitat are avoided or that habitat for A. desereticus was not be delisted only if such data unavoidable impacts are appropriately prudent due to the lack of benefit to the substantiate that it is neither mitigated (UDWR et al. 2006). species. Specifically, we discussed endangered nor threatened for one or Prior to state acquisition of the WMA, application of sections 4 and 7 of the more of the following reasons: (1) livestock grazing (primarily sheep) had Act and management of the species’ Extinction; (2) recovery; and (3) original occurred for over 100 years on occupied habitat by UDWR. data for classification in error. Astragalus desereticus habitat (England On July 5, 2005, the Center for Native When we listed Astragalus 2006). The WMA is now being managed Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and the desereticus, we identified several as big game winter range and UDWR Utah Native Plant Society filed a threats to the species, all but one habitat controls all grazing rights on the complaint in the U.S. District Court for related. These threats included primary property. Cattle grazing has been used the District of Columbia challenging our and secondary effects of urban as a management tool by UDWR, but determination that designating critical expansion, road construction, and cattle only on a limited basis. A. desereticus habitat was ‘‘not prudent’’ (Center for grazing (all identified pursuant to occupied habitat is largely unsuitable Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, factors A and E). Factor D, inadequacy for cattle grazing (Green 2006). There is and Utah Native Plant Society v. Gale of existing regulatory mechanisms, was no evidence that current wildlife or Norton (05–CV–01336–RCL)). In a also identified as a threat. Information livestock browsing levels are negatively stipulated settlement agreement, we available at this time indicates that impacting A. desereticus populations agreed to submit for publication in the some of these threats did not (UDWR et al. 2006). Federal Register a new critical habitat materialize, and others are not as A significant portion of the species’ determination for Astragalus desereticus significant as we had anticipated. In range (approximately 67 percent) is by January 19, 2007. addition, a recently completed managed by UDWR as part of the This advance notice of proposed Conservation Agreement (cited herein as Northwest Manti WMA. Plants rulemaking (ANPR) announces our UDWR et al. 2006) among the Service, occurring on the WMA constitute the intent to remove Astragalus desereticus UDWR, UDOT, and SITLA should core of the species’ population, from the Federal list of Endangered and adequately address our concerns providing the seed source for Threatened Plants, based on a pursuant to factor D. We are not aware reproduction and maintenance of the combination of recovery and original of any new threats at this time that were seed bank (UDWR et al. 2006). Historic data error, including: (1) The species’ not identified when the species was data and recent observations indicate habitat remains intact and little changed listed. that the population has grown from the early 1990s when monitoring Although the species’ distribution is substantially since listing (Franklin activities were first initiated (UDWR et still small and restricted, there has been 1990; Stone 1992; Service 2005). Plant al. 2006); (2) the population has grown little to no habitat disturbance in recent density on the WMA , as measured by considerably since listing; and (3) years and there are no foreseeable Service personnel, increased by 31 threats are not as significant as we had potential threats to the State-owned percent between 2000 and 2005 (Service anticipated at the time of listing, and portion of the species’ range (UDWR et 2005); therefore, the species and its they are adequately managed such that al. 2006). Occupied habitat continues to habitat are considered stable (UDWR et the species is not likely to become in be intact and little has changed since al. 2006). danger of extinction throughout all or a the early 1990s when Stone (1992) Natural events such as drought and significant portion of its range in the concluded that the population was not fire may occur in the areas of A. foreseeable future. This notice also subject to any deterministic threats (i.e., desereticus habitat. However, we have constitutes our new prudency habitat destruction or attempts at no information to indicate that natural determination in fulfillment of the eradication) (UDWR et al. 2006). One events have or may cause long-term stipulated settlement agreement. house has been built on private property population reductions. Vegetation within the species’ range, affecting within the species’ range is an open to Review of Available Information about 2 ac (0.8 ha), or less than 1 sparse woodland overstory, not prone to Section 4 of the Act and its percent of occupied habitat. Residential fire outbreaks (Franklin 1990, England implementing regulations (50 CFR part development could directly affect up to 2006). 424.11) set forth procedures for about 10 percent of the species’ habitat The Service, UDWR, UDOT, and removing species from the Federal List in the future (England 2006); however, SITLA signed a Conservation Agreement of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife this is not considered to be a significant (CA) dated October 10, 2006, that was and Plants. Regulations at 50 CFR threat, given that the majority of the specifically developed to ensure long- 424.11(d) state that the factors species habitat would remain protected term survival and conservation of considered in delisting a species are the on the State WMA for the foreseeable Astragalus desereticus (UDWR et al. following, as they relate to the future. We are not aware of any specific 2006). The CA is designed to formalize definitions of endangered or threatened development plans at this time. a program of conservation measures that species: (A) Present or threatened There are currently no plans for address potential threats and maintain destruction, modification, or highway widening (West 2006). Should the species’ specialized habitat. These curtailment of habitat or range; (B) highway widening occur in the future, measures are consistent with actions overutilization for commercial, there is adequate right-of-way space to taken by UDWR and they have a proven

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:34 Jan 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM 25JAP1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 3382 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules

track record of protecting and enhancing protection given proven and effective must comply with the Act. If delisting the species. Measures include: (1) management strategies already occurs, we anticipate that the CA Habitat maintenance (including implemented by the State of Utah. The discussed above would guide A. maintenance of the current pinyon- recently signed CA (UDWR et al. 2006) desereticus management. juniper woodland vegetation type with provides assurances for continued its current diverse understory of native management and protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 shrubs, grasses and forbs; restricting species under these proven strategies, This rule does not contain any new habitat disturbing actions such as which should maintain habitat of collections of information that require livestock grazing and road and mineral sufficient quantity and quality to ensure approval by the Office of Management development; ensuring that the viable populations for the foreseeable and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork destruction of individual plants does future. Available information indicates Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). not occur and that appropriate that the A. desereticus population has This rule will not impose recordkeeping mitigation is provided for any grown substantially since listing, and or reporting requirements on State or unavoidable effects to individual plants the species and its habitat are local governments, individuals, or their habitat); (2) retention of A. considered stable (UDWR et al. 2006). businesses, or organizations. An agency desereticus habitat on the Birdseye Unit Because of the population growth, the may not conduct or sponsor, and a of the Northwest Manti WMA in State Conservation Agreement and the fact person is not required to respond to, a of Utah ownership under the that threats identified at the time of collection of information unless it management of the UDWR; and (3) listing are no longer significant or have displays a currently valid OMB control avoidance of herbicide use in A. never materialized, available number. desereticus habitat, including along information indicates that habitat highway right-of-ways. The CA also destruction is no longer a threat to the National Environmental Policy Act includes an annual monitoring program species. and provides a mechanism to evaluate Therefore, based on our regulations We have determined that we do not the feasibility of acquiring private lands and the information available to us at need to prepare an Environmental to benefit A. desereticus. this time, we find there are no areas that Assessment, as defined by the National Based on our evaluation, we conclude constitute critical habitat for A. Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in that the CA is sufficient to address desereticus because no areas meet the connection with regulations adopted potential future threats to the species on definition of critical habitat pursuant to pursuant to section 4(a) of the State of Utah lands, providing long-term section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Thus, critical Endangered Species Act. We published protection and enhancement measures. habitat designation would not be a notice outlining our reasons for this In accordance with the CA, efforts will beneficial to the species. Designation of determination in the Federal Register be made to work with adjacent private critical habitat is, therefore, not prudent. on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). landowners to provide species Effects of This Advance Notice of References Cited conservation measures and easements. Proposed Rulemaking However, long-term species A complete list of all references cited conservation can be achieved solely on This Advance Notice of Proposed herein is available, upon request, from the State of Utah WMA which provides Rulemaking announces our intent to the Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. the core of the species population, propose rulemaking which may remove Fish and Wildlife Service (see protections afforded Astragalus providing the seed source for ADDRESSES section). reproduction, and maintenance of the desereticus under the Act. This rule, if seed bank (UDWR et al. 2006). made final, would revise 50 CFR Author 17.12(h) to remove A. desereticus from Prudency Determination the List of Endangered and Threatened The primary author of this document As mentioned above, we believe that Plants. Because no critical habitat was is Larry England, Botanist, Utah designating critical habitat would not be ever designated for this species, this Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and beneficial to the species (50 CFR rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.96. Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES 424.12). Specifically, we believe that If we make a final decision to delist section). there are no habitat areas containing Astragalus desereticus, the prohibitions Authority physical or biological features that are and conservation measures provided by essential to the conservation of the the Act would no longer apply to this The authority for this action is section species and that may require special species. Federal agencies would no 4 of the Endangered Species Act of management consideration or longer be required to consult with us 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et protection, and available information at under section 7 of the Act to ensure that seq.). the time of this determination indicates any action they authorize, fund, or carry Dated: January 18, 2007. that the threats to the species identified out would not likely jeopardize the at the time of listing are no longer continued existence of A. desereticus or Todd Willens, significant or have never materialized. destroy or adversely modify designated Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Astragalus desereticus habitat does critical habitat. Until A. desereticus is Wildlife and Parks. not require additional special delisted, any Federal actions, or [FR Doc. E7–1062 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am] management considerations or federally funded or permitted actions, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:34 Jan 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM 25JAP1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS