9202 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E9–4449 Filed 2–26–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0038] 

RIN 2127–AK44 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; 

Air Brake Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

extend by 18 months a requirement that 

trailers with antilock brake systems be 

equipped with an external antilock 

malfunction indicator lamp. It also 

considers making the requirement 

permanent. The indicator lamp 

requirement, which is included in the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

that governs vehicles equipped with air 

brakes, was originally scheduled to 

sunset on March 1, 2009, but has been 

extended to September 1, 2009 in an 

interim final rule published in today’s 

Federal Register. Under our proposal, 

the sunset date would be extended until 

March 1, 2011. This rulemaking is in 

response to a petition from the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

(CVSA), which has asked that this 

requirement be made permanent. 

Extending the sunset date for an 

additional 18 months would enable the 

agency to fully analyze CVSA’s request 

that the requirement be made 

permanent, and avoid a potential 

confusing time gap in the vehicles 

subject to the requirement. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

the Docket receives them not later than 

April 2, 2009. Comments may be 

combined with ones on the 

accompanying interim final rule, which 

is being published today using the same 

docket number. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to 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 DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 

George Soodoo, Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202–366– 

4931; FAX: 202–366–7002). For legal 

issues, you may call Mr. Ari Scott, 

Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone: 202– 

366–2992; FAX: 202–366–3820). You 

may send mail to these officials at: 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions 

III. Agency Analysis and Proposal 

IV. Shortened Comment Period 

V. Public Participation 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

The final rule requiring antilock brake 

systems (ABS) on truck tractors, other 

air-braked heavy vehicles including 

trailers, and hydraulic-braked trucks 

was published in the Federal Register 

(60 FR 13216) on March 10, 1995. As 

amended by that final rule, FMVSS No. 

121, Air Brake Systems, required two 

separate in-cab ABS malfunction 

indicator lamps for each truck tractor, 

one for the tractor’s ABS (effective 

March 1, 1997) and the other for the 

trailer’s ABS (effective March 1, 2001). 

The final rule also required air-braked 

trailers to be equipped with an 

externally mounted ABS malfunction 

lamp (effective March 1, 1998) so that 

the driver of a non-ABS equipped 

tractor or a pre-2001 ABS-equipped 

tractor towing an ABS-equipped trailer 

would be alerted in the event of a 

malfunction in the trailer ABS. 

The requirement for the trailermounted ABS malfunction indicator 

lamp was originally scheduled to expire 

on March 1, 2009. The agency 

established this sunset date in light of 

the fact that, after this eight-year period, 

many of the pre-2001 tractors without 

the dedicated trailer ABS malfunction 

indicator lamp would no longer be in 

long-haul service. The agency based its 

decision on the belief that the typical 

tractor life was five to seven years, and 

therefore decided on an eight-year 

period for the external ABS malfunction 

indicator lamp requirement. We further 

stated our belief that there would be no 

need for a redundant ABS malfunction 

lamp mounted on the trailer after the 

vast majority of tractors were equipped 

with an in-cab ABS malfunction 

indicator lamp for the trailer. 

II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions 

CVSA is an international not-forprofit organization comprised of local, 

state, provincial, territorial and federal 

motor carrier safety officials and 

industry representatives from the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. The 

CVSA promotes commercial vehicle 

safety and sponsors vehicle inspections 

by partnering with the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, Canadian Council of 

Motor Transport Administrators, 

Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of 

Communications and Transportation 

(Mexico). 

On October 22, 2007, CVSA 

petitioned the National Highway Traffic 

safety Administration (NHTSA) to 

amend FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake 

Systems, to make the requirement for 

the external antilock malfunction 

indicator lamp permanent instead of 

allowing it to expire, as originally 

intended, on March 1, 2009 (and is 

subsequently being modified to 

September 1, 2009, by an accompanying 

interim final rule). CVSA included in its 

petition suggested regulatory text along 

with its rationale for why the extension 

should be permanent. Since receiving 

the petition, the agency has received 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9203 

letters of support for the CVSA petition 

from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers 

Association, the Owner Operator 

Independent Drivers Association, and 

the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers 

Council. 

On October 15, 2008 CVSA again 

petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS 

No. 121, requesting that the agency 

issue a ‘‘stay’’ of the sunset date of 

March 1, 2009 for the external ABS 

warning lamp. CVSA stated that a 

‘‘stay’’ would prevent a time gap in the 

regulation, while NHTSA continues to 

evaluate its 2007 petition. CVSA stated 

that the vehicle inspection process has 

already been complicated by the 

phased-in ABS and ABS malfunction 

indicator lamp requirements and a gap 

would further complicate the inspection 

process and cause additional confusion 

for drivers and maintenance personnel. 

III. Agency Analysis and Proposal 

The CVSA petitions raise two main 

issues that the agency will address. The 

first issue relates to ensuring that a 

driver or inspector can determine the 

operational status of a trailer ABS, if the 

trailer is not equipped with an external 

ABS lamp or the tractor is a pre-2001 

tractor without the trailer in-cab ABS 

warning lamp. The second issue relates 

to the use of the external trailer ABS 

warning lamp for diagnostic purposes. 

We note that CVSA did not provide data 

indicating the number of pre-2001 truck 

tractors it believed to still be in long 

haul service. 

The agency wants to ensure that 

drivers and inspectors can determine if 

a ABS trailer system is functioning, and 

we also want to avoid imposing 

unnecessary burdens on trailer 

manufacturers. Moreover, NHTSA is 

also concerned about the complications 

and confusion that could arise for 

drivers and inspectors, if the ABS 

warning lamp requirement sunsets and 

then NHTSA decides to extend it, either 

permanently or for some fixed period of 

time. 

While we are continuing to evaluate 

whether a permanent or long-term 

extension would be appropriate, we 

have tentatively concluded that a twoyear extension is in the interests of 

motor vehicle safety. This extension 

would prevent a potential gap in the 

regulation and allow the agency 

additional time to evaluate all the 

arguments raised in the CVSA petitions. 

Given the imminence of the March 1, 

2009 sunset, it is not possible for us to 

complete notice and comment 

rulemaking prior to that time. We are 

therefore publishing two related 

documents in today’s Federal Register. 

We are publishing an interim final rule 

that extends the sunset date for six 

months, to September 1, 2009, as well 

as this proposed rule which would 

extend the sunset date for an additional 

18 months, to March 1, 2011. The 

interim final rule will prevent the lamp 

requirement from sunsetting prior to our 

making a decision on the NPRM. 

Accordingly, NHTSA is granting the 

petitions in part and is proposing to 

extend the sunset date by an additional 

18 months, from September 1, 2009 to 

March 1, 2011. NHTSA expects to be 

able to fully analyze the issues raised by 

the petitions within this time frame and 

further address the issues raised by the 

CVSA petitions prior to March 1, 2011. 

Furthermore, depending on the 

comments received in response to this 

document, if the agency is able to fully 

resolve the outstanding issues, the 

agency may in a final rule based on this 

NPRM decide to remove the sunset 

provision entirely and make the 

requirement for the indicator lamp 

permanent. 

IV. Shortened Comment Period 

Given the short time before the sunset 

of the lamp requirement, even with the 

six-month extension provided in the 

interim final rule, we are providing a 

30-day comment period. Because the 

full duration of the extension is only six 

months, we believe this shortened 

comment period is appropriate. We also 

note that the subject of the proposal is 

the extension of a longstanding existing 

requirement. Therefore, there has been 

considerable experience with the 

requirement at issue. 

V. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System Web 

site at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR Part 

512.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

a final rule (assuming that one is 

issued), we will consider that comment 

as an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9204 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the Internet. To read 

the comments on the Internet, go to 

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

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

E.O. 12866. The agency has considered 

the impact of this action under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has 

determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’ 

under them. 

This document proposes to delay the 

sunset date of the antilock malfunction 

indicator lamp requirement from 

September 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011. 

Since trailers manufactured after March 

1, 1998 have already been complying 

with the requirement and the agency is 

merely proposing to extend the 

requirement for an additional two years, 

the impact on costs is not significant. 

Not supplying a lamp could result in a 

trailer that could be made for a few 

dollars less. We estimate the costs to be 

so minimal that preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., NHTSA has 

evaluated the effects of this action on 

small entities. I hereby certify that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposal 

would merely extend a sunset provision 

in FMVSS No. 121. No other changes 

are being proposed in this document. 

Small organizations and small 

government units would not be 

significantly affected since this 

proposed action would not affect the 

price of new motor vehicles. Trailer 

manufacturers would not be required to 

install new systems but rather continue 

to install the systems they are already 

installing for two additional years. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications because it does 

not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety 

standards can have preemptive effect in 

at least two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemption 

provision: ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety 

standard is in effect under this chapter, 

a State or a political subdivision of a 

State may prescribe or continue in effect 

a standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment only if the 

standard is identical to the standard 

prescribed under this chapter.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 

command that unavoidably preempts 

State legislative and administrative law, 

not today’s rulemaking, so consultation 

would be unnecessary. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility of implied 

preemption: State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has considered today’s 

proposed rule and does not currently 

foresee any potential State requirements 

that might conflict with it. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposed rule is discussed above. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) 

Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency must evaluate 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of the planned rule on children, 

and explain why the planned regulation 

is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

affect children and it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Consequently, no further analysis is 

required under Executive Order 13045. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. There is not any information 

collection requirement associated with 

this NPRM. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency 

to evaluate and use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9205 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 

directs us to provide Congress (through 

OMB) with explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. There are no voluntary 

consensus standards developed by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies 

pertaining to this NPRM. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This NPRM would not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

President’s memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. Application of 

the principles of plain language 

includes consideration of the following 

questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule 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 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to 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 DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.121 is amended by 

revising S5.2.3.3(a) to read as follows: 

§ 571.121; Standard No. 121; Air brake 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S5.2.3.3 Antilock malfunction 

indicator. 

(a) In addition to the requirements of 

S5.2.3.2, each trailer and trailer 

converter dolly manufactured on or after 

March 1, 1998, and before March 1, 

2011, shall be equipped with an 

external antilock malfunction indicator 

lamp that meets the requirements of 

S5.2.3.3 (b) through (d). 

* * * * * 

Issued: February 26, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–4491 Filed 2–27–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R2–ES–2009–0004; 92210–1111– 

0000–B3] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Initiation of Status Review 

for the Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) 

in the Lower Colorado River Basin 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; initiation of status 

review and solicitation of new 

information. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

initiation of a status review for the 

roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in the 

lower Colorado River basin. Through 

this action, we encourage all interested 

parties to provide us information 

regarding the status of, and any 

potential threats to, the roundtail chub. 

We request information on the status of 

roundtail chub throughout the range of 

the species, in order to evaluate a 

petition to list a distinct population 

segment (DPS) in the lower Colorado 

River basin. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before April 2, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– 

ES–2009–0004; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Information Solicited section below for 

more information). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS