30310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

examinations are to be conducted on no 

less than an annual basis, and are to be 

as of and for the 12 months ended June 

30 of each year (except for the period 

ending June 30, 2010, for which the 

period of coverage will be no less than 

6 months, and except for new contracts 

for which the examination period will 

be no less than the period from the 

contract date to the following June 30, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the Postal 

Service). The examination reports are to 

be provided to the Postal Service by 

August 15 of each year. To the extent 

that internal control weaknesses are 

identified in a Type II SAS 70 report, 

the Postal Service may require the 

remediation of such weaknesses, review 

working papers, and engage in 

discussions about the work performed 

with the auditor. The Postal Service 

requires that all remediation efforts (if 

applicable) are completed and reported 

by the RC prior to the Postal Service’s 

fiscal year end (September 30). The RC 

will be responsible for all costs to 

conduct these examinations. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 501.16 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 501.16 PC Postage Payment 

Methodology. 

* * * * * 

(f) Security and Revenue Protection. 

To receive Postal Service approval to 

continue to operate PC Postage systems, 

the provider must submit to a periodic 

examination of its PC Postage system 

and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure that may have 

a material impact on Postal Service 

revenues, as determined by the Postal 

Service. The examination shall be 

performed by a qualified, independent 

audit firm and conducted in accordance 

with the Statement on Auditing 

Standards (SAS) No. 70, Service 

Organizations, developed by the 

American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (AICPA), as amended or 

superseded. The examination shall 

include testing of the operating 

effectiveness of relevant provider 

internal controls (Type II SAS 70 

Report). If the service organization uses 

another service organization (subservice provider), Postal Service 

management should consider the nature 

and materiality of the transactions 

processed by the sub-service 

organization and the contribution of the 

sub-service organization’s processes and 

controls in the achievement of the 

Postal Service’s information processing 

objectives. The Postal Service should 

have access to the sub-service 

organization’s SAS 70 report. The 

control objectives to be covered by the 

SAS 70 report are subject to Postal 

Service review and approval and are to 

be provided to the Postal Service 30 

days prior to the initiation of each 

examination period. As a result of the 

examination, the auditor shall provide 

the provider, and the Postal Service, 

with an opinion on the design and 

operating effectiveness of the internal 

controls related to the PC Postage 

system and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure considered 

material to the services provided to the 

Postal Service by the provider. Such 

examinations are to be conducted on no 

less than an annual basis, and are to be 

as of and for the 12 months ended June 

30 of each year (except for the period 

ending June 30, 2010, for which the 

period of coverage will be no less than 

6 months, and except for new contracts 

for which the examination period will 

be no less than the period from the 

contract date to the following June 30, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the Postal 

Service). The examination reports are to 

be provided to the Postal Service by 

August 15 of each year. To the extent 

that internal control weaknesses are 

identified in a Type II SAS 70 report, 

the Postal Service may require the 

remediation of such weaknesses, review 

working papers, and engage in 

discussions about the work performed 

with the auditor. The provider will be 

responsible for all costs to conduct these 

examinations. 

* * * * * 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12883 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0380; A–1–FRL– 

9156–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Determination of 

Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard 

for the Greater Connecticut Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Greater Connecticut, 

moderate 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. 

This determination is based upon 

complete, quality-assured, certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period. If this 

proposed determination is made final, 

under the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule, the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, a reasonable further 

progress plan, contingency measures, 

and other planning State 

Implementation Plans related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to determine that this area 

has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS as 

of June 15, 2010, its applicable 

attainment date, provided that the area 

continues to attain the standard through 

June 15, 2010. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0380 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0380,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

0380. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30311 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax 

number (617) 918–0664, e-mail 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of these actions? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

V. Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Greater Connecticut, moderate 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone. This determination is based 

upon complete, quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the 2007–2009 monitoring period. In 

addition, under section 181(b)(2)(A) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

proposing to determine that this area 

has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by 

its applicable attainment date (June 15, 

2010), provided that the area continues 

to attain the standard as of June 15, 

2010. EPA will not finalize this 

determination unless the area continues 

to attain the standard through June 15, 

2010. 

II. What is the effect of these actions? 

If EPA’s determination that the area is 

attaining the standard is made final, 

under the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.918), the requirements for the Greater 

Connecticut moderate ozone 

nonattainment area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, a reasonable 

further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS would be 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This proposed action, if 

finalized, would not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d)(3), 

because we would not yet have an 

approved maintenance plan for the area 

as required under section 175A of the 

CAA, nor a determination that the area 

has met the other requirements for 

redesignation. The classification and 

designation status of the area would 

remain moderate nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such 

time as EPA determines that the area 

meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation to attainment. 

If this determination of attainment is 

finalized and EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, that 

the area has violated the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the basis for the 

suspension of these requirements would 

no longer exist, and the area would 

thereafter have to address the pertinent 

CAA requirements. It should be noted 

that Connecticut submitted an 

attainment demonstration, reasonable 

further progress plan and contingency 

measures for this area on February 1, 

2008. EPA has not taken action on these 

submittals for the Greater Connecticut 

area. 

In addition, under section 

181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the 

provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.902(a)), EPA is proposing to 

determine that this area has attained the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010, 

provided that the area continues to 

attain the standard through June 15, 

2010. The effect of a final determination 

of attainment by the area’s attainment 

date would be to discharge EPA’s 

obligation under section 181(b)(2)(A), 

and to establish that, in accordance with 

that section, the area would not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

designated as nonattainment any area 

that was violating the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years (2001–2003) of air quality 

data. The Greater Connecticut area was 

designated as a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area. The Greater 

Connecticut area consists of the 

following Connecticut counties: 

Hartford, Litchfield, New London, 

Tolland and Windham. Recent air 

quality data, however, indicate that the 

Greater Connecticut area is now 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

The EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for ozone, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR Part 50 and recorded in the Air 

Quality Data System (AQS) database, for 

Greater Connecticut, from 2007 through 

2009. On the basis of that review, EPA 

proposes to conclude that the area 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

at the end of the 2009 ozone season, 

based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured and state-certified 2007– 

2009 ozone data. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 

50, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained at a site when the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations at an ozone monitor is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 Groton site relocated in 2007. Data collected at 

both sites for 2007. The site was relocated because 

site 090110008 was in danger of not meeting EPA 

siting criteria due to nearby trees, which could not 

be cut. Site 090110124 was chosen, in part since it 

is a CT DEP owned site and can remain at this 

location for a long time. The new site is less than 

three miles from the old site and measures 

comparable air quality. Both sites meet data capture 

requirements for 2007. EPA approved this 

relocation in 2007. 

2Connecticut submitted an attainment 

demonstration, reasonable further progress plan and 

contingency measures for this area on February 1, 

2008. EPA has not taken action on these submittals. 

less than or equal to 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm) (i.e., 0.084 ppm, based on 

the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix I). This 3-year average is 

referred to as the design value. When 

the design value is less than or equal to 

0.084 ppm at each monitoring site 

within the area, then the area is meeting 

the NAAQS. Also, the data 

completeness requirement is met when 

the average percent of days with valid 

ambient monitoring data is greater than 

90%, and no single year has less than 

75% data completeness as determined 

in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. 

Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations for the Greater 

Connecticut nonattainment area 

monitors for the years 2007–2009, and 

the ozone design values for these same 

monitors based on 2007–2009. 

TABLE 1—2007–2009 FOURTH-HIGH 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND 2007–2009 DESIGN VALUES

(PARTS PER MILLION) IN THE GREATER CONNECTICUT AREA

Site ID Site location 4th High 

2007 

4th High 

2008 

4th High 

2009 

Design 

value 

(07–09) 

090050006 ................................................ Cornwall .................................................... 89 77 70 78 

090031003 ................................................ East Hartford ............................................ 97 80 66 81 

090110008 ................................................ Groton ....................................................... 89 .................... .................... ....................

090110124 ................................................ Groton ....................................................... 1 92 80 73 81 

090131001 ................................................ Stafford ..................................................... 87 84 74 81 

EPA’s review of these data indicates 

that theGreater Connecticut ozone 

nonattainment area has met the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 2007– 

2009 data. EPA believes these data 

establish the likelihood that the Greater 

CT area will also be attaining the 

standard as of its applicable attainment 

date of June 15, 2010. Thus, in 

accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2), 

EPA is also proposing to determine that 

the Greater CT area has attained the 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date, provided that the area continues to 

be in attainment of the standard as of 

that date. EPA will not finalize this 

proposed determination of attainment 

by the area’s attainment date unless the 

area is in attainment as of June 15, 2010. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters pertaining to this 

rulemaking action. These comments 

will be considered before EPA takes 

final action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Greater Connecticut 1997 8-hour 

ozone moderate nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, based on complete, qualityassured data from 2007 through 2009. 

As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA 

finalizes this determination, it would 

suspend the requirements for 

Connecticut to submit planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for this area, for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 

standard.2 In addition, under section 

181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act and 

the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

Section 51.902(a)), EPA is proposing to 

determine that this area has attained the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010, 

provided that the area continues in 

attainment as of that date. EPA will not 

finalize this determination unless the 

area continues to attain through June 15, 

2010. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions propose to make 

determinations of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized; 

result in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements, and would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to the requirements 

of Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30313 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 20, 2010. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13083 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0020] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List Castanea pumila var. 

ozarkensis 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90–day finding on a petition to list 

Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ozark 

chinquapin), a tree, as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Based on our review, we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing this species may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a status review of the species 

to determine if listing Castanea pumila 

var. ozarkensis is warranted. To ensure 

that the review is comprehensive, we 

are requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12 month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before August 

2, 2010. Please note that if you are using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section, below), the 

deadline for submitting an electronic 

comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Savings Time on this date. 

After August 2, 2010, you must 

submit information directly to the Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below). Please note that 

we might not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is FWS-R4-ES-2009-0020. Check the box 

that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2009-0020; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information we 

receive on http://www.regulations.gov. 

This generally means that we will post 

any personal information you provide 

us (see the Request for Information 

section below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, 

Arkansas Ecological Services Field 

Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 

300, Conway, AR 72032; by telephone 

(501-513-4470); or by facsimile (501- 

513-4480). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on Castanea pumila var. 

ozarkensis from governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) The potential effects of climate 

change on this species and its habitat. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing Castanea pumila 

var. ozarkensis is warranted, we will 

propose critical habitat (see definition 

in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), in 

accordance with section 4 of the Act, to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis, we 

request data and information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found, and 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In addition, we request data and 

information on ‘‘specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1