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
9206 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 

West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, 

Phoenix, AZ 85021–4951; telephone 

602–242–0210; facsimile 602–242–2513. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

To ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information concerning the status of the 

roundtail chub (Gila robusta). 

Information gained during this process 

will be used to evaluate whether the 

lower Colorado River basin population 

of roundtail chub is a distinct 

population segment (DPS) as described 

in our Policy Regarding the Recognition 

of Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments Under the Endangered 

Species Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), and if listing as 

threatened or endangered is warranted 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). We request information from 

the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties on the status of the 

roundtail chub throughout its range, 

including: 

(1) Information from the United States 

and Mexico regarding the species’ 

historical and current population status, 

distribution, and trends; taxonomy; 

genetics; biology and ecology; and 

habitat selection. 

(2) Information that supports or 

refutes the appropriateness of 

considering the lower Colorado River 

basin population of roundtail chub to be 

discrete, as defined in the DPS Policy, 

including, but not limited to: 

(a) Information indicating that lower 

Colorado River basin roundtail chub are 

markedly separated from other 

populations of roundtail chub due to 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors. 

(b) Information indicating whether or 

not the lower Colorado River basin 

population of roundtail chub is 

delimited by international governmental 

boundaries within which significant 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist. 

(3) Information that supports or 

refutes the appropriateness of 

considering the lower Colorado River 

basin population of roundtail chub to be 

significant, as defined in the DPS 

Policy, including, but not limited to: 

(a) Information indicating that the 

ecological setting, including such 

factors as temperature, moisture, 

weather patterns, plant communities, 

etc., in which the lower Colorado River 

basin population of roundtail chub 

persists is unusual or unique when 

compared to that of roundtail chub 

found elsewhere in the United States or 

Mexico. 

(b) Information indicating that loss of 

the lower Colorado River basin 

population of roundtail chub would or 

would not result in a significant gap in 

the range of the taxon. 

(c) Information indicating that the 

lower Colorado River basin population 

of roundtail chub differs markedly from 

other populations of roundtail chub in 

its genetic characteristics. 

(4) Information on the effects of 

potential threat factors in the United 

States and Mexico that are the basis for 

a listing determination under section 

4(a) of the Act, which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the subspecies’ 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. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, because 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

determine whether listing is warranted, 

not warranted, or warranted but 

precluded by other pending proposals. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider 

submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to 

an address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition 

and supporting information submitted 

with the petition. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. Section 4(b)(3)(B) also requires 

that, for any petition to revise the Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that the action may be warranted, we 

make a finding within 12 months of the 

date of the receipt of the petition on 

whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted but precluded by other 

pending proposals. Such 12-month 

findings are to be published promptly in 

the Federal Register. 

On April 14, 2003, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity requesting that we list a DPS 

of the roundtail chub in the lower 

Colorado River basin as endangered or 

threatened, that we list the headwater 

chub (Gila nigra) as endangered or 

threatened, and that we designate 

critical habitat concurrently with the 

listing for both species. On July 12, 

2005, we published our 90-day finding 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific information indicating that 

listing the headwater chub and a DPS of 

the roundtail chub in the lower 

Colorado River basin may be warranted 

and initiated a 12-month status review 

(70 FR 39981). 

On May 3, 2006, we published our 12- 

month finding that listing was 

warranted for the headwater chub, but 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions, and that listing of a DPS of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9207 

roundtail chub in the lower Colorado 

River basin was not warranted because 

populations of roundtail chub in the 

lower Colorado River basin did not meet 

our definition of a DPS (71 FR 26007). 

On September 7, 2006, we received a 

complaint from the Center for Biological 

Diversity for declaratory and injunctive 

relief, challenging our decision not to 

list the lower Colorado River basin 

population of the roundtail chub as an 

endangered species under the Act. On 

November 5, 2007, in a stipulated 

settlement agreement, we agreed to 

commence a new status review of the 

lower Colorado basin population of the 

roundtail chub and to submit a 12- 

month finding to the Federal Register 

by June 30, 2009. 

At this time, we are soliciting new 

information on the status of and 

potential threats to the roundtail chub. 

We will base our new determination as 

to whether listing of a DPS for roundtail 

chub in the lower Colorado River basin 

is warranted on a review of the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, including all information we 

receive as a result of this notice. For 

more information on the biology, 

habitat, and range of the roundtail chub, 

please refer to our previous 90-day 

finding published in the Federal 

Register on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39981), 

and our previous 12-month finding 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26007). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Arizona 

Ecological Services Office. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: February 20, 2009. 

Ken Stansell, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4155 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[FWS–R9–MB–2009–0003; 91200–1231– 

9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AW46 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for 

Approval of Tungsten-IronFluoropolymer Shot as Nontoxic for 

Waterfowl Hunting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of application for 

nontoxic shot approval. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce that Tundra 

Composites, LLC, of White Bear Lake, 

Minnesota, has applied for our approval 

of shot composed of alloys of tungsten, 

iron, and fluoropolymer as nontoxic for 

waterfowl hunting in the United States. 

The alloys are 41.5 to 95.2 percent 

tungsten, 1.5 to 52.0 percent steel, and 

3.5 to 8.0 percent fluoropolymer by 

weight. We have initiated review of the 

shot under the criteria we have set out 

in our nontoxic shot approval 

procedures in our regulations. 

DATES: Our comprehensive review of the 

application information is to conclude 

by May 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may review the Tundra 

Composites application at the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Arlington, VA 22203–1610. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Kokel, Wildlife Biologist, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358– 

1967. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 

a–j) implements migratory bird treaties 

between the United States and Great 

Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as 

amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as 

amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as 

amended), and Russia (then the Soviet 

Union, 1978). These treaties protect 

certain migratory birds from take, except 

as permitted under the Act. The Act 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to regulate take of migratory birds in the 

United States. Under this authority, we 

control the hunting of migratory game 

birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 

20. We prohibit the use of shot types 

other than those listed in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 

20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots 

and any species that make up aggregate 

bag limits. 

Since the mid-1970s, we have sought 

to identify types of shot for waterfowl 

hunting that are not toxic to migratory 

birds or other wildlife when ingested. 

We have approved nontoxic shot types 

and added them to the migratory bird 

hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). 

We will continue to review all shot 

types submitted for approval as 

nontoxic. 

Tundra Composites has submitted its 

application to us with the counsel that 

it contained all of the specified 

information for a complete Tier 1 

submittal, and has requested 

unconditional approval pursuant to the 

Tier 1 timeframe. Having determined 

that the application is complete, we 

have initiated a comprehensive review 

of the Tier 1 information under 50 CFR 

21.134. After review, we will either 

publish a notice of review to inform the 

public that the Tier 1 test results are 

inconclusive, or we will publish a 

proposed rule to approve the candidate 

shot. If the Tier 1 tests are inconclusive, 

the notice of review will indicate what 

other tests we will require before we 

will again consider approval of the 

Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer shot as 

nontoxic. If the Tier 1 data review 

results in a preliminary determination 

that the candidate material does not 

pose a significant toxicity hazard to 

migratory birds, other wildlife, or their 

habitats, the Service will commence 

with a rulemaking proposing to approve 

the candidate shot and add it to our list 

at 50 CFR 20.21(j). 

Dated: February 25, 2009. 

Jerome Ford, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4455 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

RIN 0648–AX72 

Identification and Certification of 

Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are 

Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, or 

Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of 

Protected Living Marine Resources 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing; request 

for comments. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS