        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT44

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce the availability of a draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County (here after referred to as “California tiger salamander”) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also reopening the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for this species to allow all interested parties to comment on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record as a part of this reopening of the comment period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept all comments received on or before November 8, 2004. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by any one of several methods:
          (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003, or by facsimile 805/644-3958.
          (2) You may hand-deliver written comments to our office, at the address given above.
          (3) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw1ctsch@r1.fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed critical habitat rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. You may obtain copies of the draft economic analysis for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address. The draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation also are available on the Internet at http://ventura.fws.gov/. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Katie Drexhage (telephone 805/549-3811; facsimile 805/549-3233 or Michael McCrary (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958), Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed above.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The California tiger salamander is a large and stocky salamander, with a broad, rounded snout. Adult males may reach a total length of 8.2 inches (in) (20.8 centimeters (cm)) while females are slightly smaller, reaching about 6.8 in (17.3 cm) in length. The top of the salamander can have white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background. The underside varies from almost uniform white or pale yellow to a varying pattern of white or pale yellow and black. This species is restricted to California and does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander. The Santa Barbara County salamanders are geographically separate from all other California tiger salamanders. Historically, the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders inhabited low-elevation (below 1,400 feet (427 meters)) vernal pools and ephemeral ponds, and associated coastal scrub, grassland, and oak savannah plant communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita valleys.
        The loss of the California tiger salamander's upland habitat is the single most important factor contributing to the species' status. Additional threats to this species include threats to the aquatic habitat, predation and competition by introduced or non-native species, habitat fragmentation, contaminants, hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders, disease, and over-grazing.

        On January 19, 2000, we published an emergency rule to list the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered (65 FR 3096), concurrently with a proposed rule (65 FR 3110) to list the species as endangered. We published a final rule listing the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). On May 23, 2003, we proposed to list the Central California population of California tiger salamander as a threatened DPS. In the same Federal Register notice we also proposed to downlist the Sonoma County DPS and Santa Barbara County DPS of California tiger salamander, from endangered to threatened status (68 FR 28648). The Federal Register notice also included a proposed special rule that would exempt existing routine ranching activities from the prohibitions of the Act. On August 4, 2004, we determined threatened status for the California tiger salamander rangewide (69 FR 47212). We also finalized the special rule for the species rangewide, which exempts existing routine ranching activities.

        On February 25, 2003, the Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint challenging our failure to designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander (Environmental Defense Center et al. v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., EVCD 03-00195 (C.D.Cal)). By order dated August 7, 2003, the district court ordered us to publish a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the California tiger salamander. On January 22, 2004, we proposed to designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara DPS of California tiger salamander (69 FR 3064). Approximately 13,920 acres (5,633 hectares) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in Santa Barbara County, California, as described in the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule closed March 22, 2004. However, on April 13, 2004, we reopened the comment period (69 FR 19394) and announced a public hearing that was held on May 11, 2004.
        Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Section 4 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis for the proposal to designate certain areas as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander. This analysis considers the potential economic effects of our proposed designation. It also considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of listing the species under the Act, and other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation in areas proposed for designation.
        The majority of these areas occur on privately owned land. We know of no Federal, State, tribal, or military lands within proposed critical habitat. A small portion of land within one unit is owned by local jurisdictions, including the county of Santa Barbara and the Laguna County Sanitation District. The economic analysis addresses the impacts of California tiger salamander conservation efforts on activities occurring on lands proposed for designation. The analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with real estate development, grazing activities, agriculture, vineyards, road construction projects, utility and other infrastructure projects, as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, uncertainty, and project delay.
        There is a great deal of uncertainty in estimating the impact of California tiger salamander-related conservation activities in the future. For example, the economic analysis projects significant future cost to private developers as a result of California tiger salamander conservation activities even though these costs have been relatively minimal in the past. For some activities the analysis estimates an upper-bound cost estimate, for others a conservative approach is taken to reach a best estimate. The implicit lower-bound cost estimate predicts no impact.
        Total efficiency costs (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use) for the upper bound scenario are estimated to be $411 million between 2005 and 2030. The efficiency costs for the lower bound scenario are estimated to be $105 million between 2005 and 2030. In both cases, the real estate industry, in particular the owners of developable land, is estimated to experience the highest cost overall, followed by agriculture and road construction projects.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend any final action resulting from this proposal to be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the economic analysis or the proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of excluding outweigh benefits of including any area as critical habitat;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of California tiger salamander habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of this species and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
        (5) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs. If not, what costs are overlooked;
        (6) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (7) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive from the designation;
        (8) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
        (9) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation;
        (10) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments;
        (11) What the likely benefits of designating critical habitat are and whether the economic analysis appropriately captures those economic benefits that are susceptible to quantification;
        (12) Any suggestions to improve our economic analysis particularly with regard to its consideration of the foreseeable economic benefits of critical habitat designation; and
        (13) Any suggestions to improve our ability to identify the noneconomic benefits of designating a particular area as critical habitat to enable a more comprehensive and informed analysis of the economic and other relevant impacts of designation.

        All comments and information submitted during the previous comment periods on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this rule by any one of several methods (see
          ADDRESSES section). Please submit Internet comments to fw1ctsch@r1.fws.gov and include “Attn: California Tiger Salamander in SB County Critical Habitat” in your e-mail subject header, and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office staff (see
          ADDRESSES section).

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: September 29, 2004.
          Julie MacDonald,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-22540 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-7899-4]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Intent to Delete Naval Magazine Indian Island, Port Hadlock from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, announces its intent to delete the Naval Magazine Indian Island Site (Site) located in Port Hadlock, Washington from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Washington have determined that the remedial action for the Site has been successfully executed by the Navy and no further response under CERCLA is needed.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the NPL may be submitted on or before May 16, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to: Beverly Gaines, EPA Point of Contact, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop, ECL-110, Seattle, Washington 98101. Comprehensive information on this Site is available in the Administrative Record which is available for reviewing at Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, 19917 Seventh Avenue NE., Poulsbo, Washington 98370, (360) 396-0018. Information on the Site and a copy of the deletion docket are available for viewing at the Information Repositories which are located at: Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Avenue, Port Hadlock, Washington 98339, (360) 385-6544, and at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Superfund Records Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-4494.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Beverly Gaines, EPA Point of Contact, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop, ECL-110, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone: (206) 553-1066, fax: (206) 553-0124, e-mail: gaines.beverly@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Introduction
          II. NPL Deletion Criteria
          III. Deletion Procedures
          IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

        I. Introduction
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Naval Magazine Indian Island, which is located near Port Hadlock, Washington, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites.
        The Naval Magazine Indian Island NPL Site covers approximately 2,700 acres. The remedial action focused primarily on a 3.7 acre landfill that operated from the 1940's until the mid 1970's and received a variety of solid and hazardous wastes. The Record of Decision for Indian Island signed in August 1995 by the Navy, EPA, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), specified remedial actions for the Northend Landfill and addressed several other areas of contamination. The Navy has conducted cleanup activities at the Site under the oversight of EPA and Ecology pursuant to an Interagency Agreement between the Navy, EPA, and Ecology. EPA and Ecology have determined that remedial action for the Site has been successfully completed by the Navy. The Site is an active Naval base used primarily for handling and storage of Naval ordnance. After deletion from the NPL, Ecology will continue its oversight activities at the Site.

        EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete the Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Indian Island Site and explains how the site meets the deletion criteria.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL, where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        (i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or
        (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate, or
        (iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or to the environment and, therefore, taking remedial measures is not appropriate.

        Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure that the site remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, the Navy may initiate additional remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a deleted site from the NPL, a site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System. In the case of this Site, the selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. However, because the remedy leaves waste on Site (only at the Northend Landfill) above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review of the selected remedy will be conducted at least every five years from initiation of the remedial action. EPA's decision on this deletion will not change the listing of Naval Magazine Indian Island on the Washington State Hazardous Sites List.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this Site: The Navy, the responsible party for the Site, has implemented all appropriate response actions required, the State of Washington has concurred with the proposed deletion decision, and a notice will be published in the local newspapers and distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parities announcing the commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and all relevant documents have been compiled in the site deletion docket and made available in the local site information repositories.

        Deletion of the site from the NPL does not in itself, create, alter or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management. As mentioned in section II of this action, § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of the site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions. For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local residents by the Regional Office.
        IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
        The following Site summary provides the Agency's rational for the proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.
        Site Background and History
        Naval Magazine Indian Island (formerly named Naval Ordnance Center, Pacific Division, Detachment Port Hadlock) is on Indian Island in Jefferson County, Washington, southeast of Port Townsend and east of Hadlock. This island is bordered by Kilisut Harbor to the east, Port Townsend Bay to the west and north, and Oak Bay and Portage Canal to the south. Indian Island is wholly owned by the Navy and is approximately five miles long and covers approximately 2,700 aces. No private residences are present on Naval Magazine Indian Island, however, there are approximately 14 military residences. A public highway connects the Olympic Peninsula with Indian Island and Marrowstone Island, an island east of Port Hadlock Detachment which supports fewer than 250 private residences. The nearest Olympic Peninsula communities are Port Hadlock and Irondale, both less than two miles west of Indian Island across Port Townsend Bay.
        The Navy purchased the island in 1939 and primarily used it for munitions storage and handling. In total, nineteen locations at the Site were identified where contamination may have represented a risk to human health or the environment. Potential sources of hazardous substances identified included municipal and industrial landfills, drum and container storage areas, above and below ground storage tanks, burn pits, and disposal pits. Disposal activities at several site locations resulted in soil, groundwater, sediment and shellfish contamination. The contaminants were ordnance compounds, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. Naval Magazine Indian Island was proposed for listing on the NPL on June 23, 1993 (58 ance FR 34018) and listed to the NPL on May 31, 1994 (59 FR 27989).
        All locations have been investigated and determined to require no cleanup action or have been cleaned up to a condition that allows for unlimited use and unrestrictive exposure, except for the Northend Landfill. All investigation and cleanup activities were conducted by the Navy pursuant to the Interagency Agreement between the Navy, EPA, and Ecology. A summary of cleanup activities conducted at the Site can be found in the Final Closeout Report which is available at the information repositories. More detailed information about CERCLA activities at the Site can be obtained in the Administrative Record. Following is a discussion of remedial activities conducted at the Northend Landfill.
        Northend Landfill (Also Referred to as Site 10)
        The Northend Landfill is an approximately 3.7-acre landfill on the north end of Naval Magazine Indian Island. The site is relatively flat and is covered with grass. The landfill is located on Boggy Spit; it extends to the beach and had partially eroded onto the beach. This site was used as the primary landfill for the island from about 1945 until the mid-1970s. An incinerator burned materials at the site from the 1940s to 1953. Materials reportedly disposed of in the landfill include paint, thinners, strippers, oil, lead and zinc batteries, asbestos, submarine nets, metal parts, polyurethane resins, and zinc-plating slag. Various site investigations have been conducted at the landfill since 1987, including soil, groundwater, marine sediment, and shellfish sampling, with chemical analyses for a wide range of constituents. Low concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, and metals were detected in the soil and groundwater. The results of the investigation were included in the final remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) . Concurrent with the RI/FS, human health and ecological risk assessments were completed by the Navy in 1993.
        Selected Remedy for the Northend Landfill
        To mitigate potential risks posed to human health and the environment, the ROD selected the following remedial actions for the landfill:

        —Placing a landfill cap over approximately 3.7 acres.
        —Placing erosion protection along approximately 900 linear feet of the landfill perimeter and shoreline.
        —Removal of eroded landfill debris located in the intertidal area, excavating landfill contents from the water edge of the landfill in order to construct the erosion protection.

        —Implementing institutional controls, which include a temporary prohibition on shellfish harvesting at Beaches 1, 2 and 19 around Boggy Spit and land use restrictions for residential use and farming. Upon base closure, deed restrictions on activities destructive to the cap and erosion protection will be attached to any property transfer, and requirements for continued operation and maintenance of the landfill cap and erosion protection will be addressed.
        —Conducting a monitoring program for groundwater, sediment, and shellfish. Groundwater monitoring will be used to measure the protectiveness of the landfill cap by monitoring the level of contaminants in the pathway from the landfill to marine habitat. The results of shellfish monitoring will be used to determine when the shellfish are safe to eat. The results of the monitoring program will be reviewed in detail at the conclusion of the monitoring period to determine whether additional monitoring is necessary.
        —Conducting regular maintenance and inspection of the landfill cap and the erosion protection, particularly after storm events.
        —Conducting five-year reviews.
        Cleanup

        Mobilization and remedial construction began in July 1996. The implementation of archaeological mitigation field activities and collection of vegetation (e.g., willow whips and dune grass) to be used in shoreline protection system began concurrently with construction mobilization. In August and September 1996, work progressed to the installation of the armor-rock section of the shoreline protection system in the High Energy Area and the quarry spall base and bench for the Low and Very Low Energy Areas. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of excavated material from the installation of the armor-rock section were re-graded over the old landfill surface and then compacted. The approximately 10,000 cubic yards of imported material used for the test fills were re-graded and compacted over the site to establish a rough grade. Additional import material was placed to establish a final grade. To reduce environmental impacts, waste was not relocated or disposed of off site. Rather, landfill waste excavated from the intertidal area during beach cleanup and armor-rock placement was placed and capped within the landfill. As a result, no waste characterization sampling and analysis were conducted during the remedial construction. After the final grade was established in October 1996, a gas collection system was installed in the landfill area. The purpose of the landfill gas system was to vent landfill gas (although none had been detected in studies done for the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority) and, more importantly, to equalize air pressure under the cap from wave action. Various components of the landfill cap (covering approximately three acres), soil cover, and storm drains were installed as weather allowed from October 1996 through January 1997. On September 26, 1997, the Navy issued the Preliminary Closeout Report signifying successful completion of construction activities. EPA and Ecology concurred with the findings in the report.
        Operation and Maintenance
        The ROD required that the selected remedy for the Northend Landfill include an O&M program to be conducted by the Navy. O&M activities began in 1997, immediately following completion of the Remedial Action for the landfill. O&M activities are described in the O&M Plan and include inspection, maintenance, and repair of the functional features of the landfill cap and shoreline protection system. These functional features include the landfill cap system, landfill gas collection system, landfill perimeter road, stormwater drainage system, irrigation system, hillside and site access road inspection, log revetment/anchor system, armor-rock shoreline protection system, and vegetated geogrid. Pursuant to the 2004 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), the O&M Plan was revised to include institutional controls requirements.
        Five-Year Reviews
        CERCLA requires a five-year review of all sites with hazardous substances remaining above health-based levels for unrestricted use of the site. Since the cleanup of the Northend Landfill utilized containment of hazardous materials as the method to reduce risks, the 5-year review process will be used to insure that hazardous substances remain encased within the landfill and that human health and the environment continue to be protected. In September 2000, the Navy conducted the first 5-year review for the Site under the oversight of EPA and Ecology. The 2000 5-year review concluded that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Subsequent five-year reviews will be completed no later than five years after the date of the previous five-year review.
        Institutional Controls
        The ROD requires institutional controls as a component of the selected remedy for the Northend Landfill including a temporary prohibition on shellfish harvesting at beaches around Boggy Spit and land use restrictions for residential use and farming.
        An Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was signed on November 19, 2004, for the Record of Decision pertaining to the Northend Landfill at the Naval Magazine Indian Island. The ESD clarifies both the site-specific institutional control requirements and establishes the requirement for how the Navy will implement, maintain, and monitor these site-specific requirements for the Northend Landfill. Institutional controls are needed at the landfill because it contains hazardous substances above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Human health and the environment will be protected as long as the institutional controls are maintained by the Navy. By addressing the institutional controls requirements in greater detail, the ESD clarified but did not change the selected remedies. The ESD affirmed that the selected remedies remain protective of human health and the environment, comply with federal and state requirements that were identified in the ROD as applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action at the time of the original ROD, and are cost effective.
        Major Community Involvement Activities
        The Navy, with the support of EPA and Ecology, has maintained an ongoing commitment to community involvement since preparation of the initial Community Relations Plan in 1989. The community has been informed of progress at the Site through newspaper ads, fact sheets, open houses, and public meetings. The Proposed Plan was circulated for public review and comment prior to preparation of the Record of Decision. Key documents have been available for review at the nearest public library located in Port Hadlock. A Technical Review Committee, consisting of interested community members and representatives of various governmental entities, was established in 1991 and meet periodically to discuss Site related issues. The Technical Review Committee was replaced by a Restoration Advisory Board in 1995 and met periodically until major work at the Site was completed in 2000.

        The major documents and information which EPA relied on or considered in deciding that the Site can be deleted from the NPL, are available for the public to review at the information repositories.

        Applicable Deletion Criteria/State Concurrence
        One of the three criteria for site deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” EPA, with the concurrence of the State of Washington, believe that this criterion for deletion has been met. Subsequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available from the docket.
        State Concurrence
        The Washington Department of Ecology concurs with the proposed deletion of the Naval Magazine Indian Island Site from the NPL.

          Dated: March 18, 2005.
          Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 05-7411 Filed 4-14-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Transportation Security Administration
        49 CFR Parts 1520 and 1554
        [Docket No. TSA-2004-17131]
        RIN 1652-AA38
        Aircraft Repair Station Security

          AGENCY:
          Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is extending the comment period on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the Aircraft Repair Station Security Program published on November 18, 2009. TSA has decided to grant, in part, two requests for an extension of the comment period and will extend the comment period for thirty (30) days. The comment period will now end on February 19, 2010, instead of January 19, 2010.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule at 74 FR 59874, November 18, 2009, is extended until February 19, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by the TSA docket number to this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-wide, electronic docket management system, using any one of the following methods:

            Electronically: You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Mail, In Person, or Fax: Address, hand-deliver, or fax your written comments to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; fax (202) 493-2251. The Department of Transportation (DOT), which maintains and processes TSA's official regulatory dockets, will scan the submission and post it to FDMS.
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for format and other information about comment submissions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Celio Young, Office of Security Operations, TSA-29, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6029; telephone (571) 227-3580; facsimile (571) 227-1905; e-mail celio.young@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Comments Invited

        TSA invites interested persons to participate in this action by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from this action. See ADDRESSES above for information on where to submit comments.

        With each comment, please identify the docket number at the beginning of your comments. TSA encourages commenters to provide their names and addresses. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the document, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. You may submit comments and material electronically, in person, by mail, or by fax as provided under ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit comments by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.
        If you would like TSA to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.

        TSA will file all comments to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or e-mail under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, in the public docket, except for comments containing confidential information and sensitive security information (SSI) 1
          . Should you wish your personally identifiable information be redacted prior to filing in the docket, please so state. TSA will consider all comments that are in the docket on or before the closing date for comments and will consider comments filed late to the extent practicable. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date.

            1 “Sensitive Security Information” or “SSI” is information obtained or developed in the conduct of security activities, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential information, or be detrimental to the security of transportation. The protection of SSI is governed by 49 CFR part 1520.

        Handling of Confidential or Proprietary Information and Sensitive Security Information (SSI) Submitted in Public Comments

        Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the action. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

        TSA will not place comments containing SSI in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. TSA will hold documents containing SSI, confidential business information, or trade secrets in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket explaining that commenter's have submitted such documents. TSA may include a redacted version of the comment in the public docket. If an individual requests to examine or copy information that is not in the public docket, TSA will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') FOIA regulation found in 6 CFR part 5.
        Reviewing Comments in the Docket

        Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of our dockets by the name of the individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if an association, business, labor union, etc., submitted the comment). You may review the applicable Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) and modified on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

        You may review TSA's electronic public docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, DOT's Docket Management Facility provides a physical facility, staff, equipment, and assistance to the public. To obtain assistance or to review comments in TSA's public docket, you may visit this facility between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, or call (202) 366-9826. This docket operations facility is located in the West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
        Availability of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
        You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

        (1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at http://www.regulations.gov;

        (2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; or
        (3) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations Web page at http://www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for “Research Center” at the top of the page.

        In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Make sure to identify the docket number of this rulemaking.
        Comment Period Extension
        On November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59874), TSA published an NPRM on the Aircraft Repair Station Security Program. The NPRM has a 60-day comment period that would have ended on January 19, 2010. In two separate requests, one dated November 20, 2009, from the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association (PAMA) and the other dated November 23, 2009, from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), both organizations requested that the deadline for filing comments on the Aircraft Repair Station Security NPRM be extended for an additional 60 days from January 19, 2010, to March 19, 2010. See Docket Item Nos. TSA-2004-17131-0034 (PAMA); TSA-2004-17131-0043 and TSA-2004-17131-0066 (IATA). PAMA and IATA believe that the original 60-day comment period is insufficient time to provide TSA with substantive comments. PAMA requests additional time for its membership to read and respond to the NPRM due to the holiday season being the airlines busiest time of the year. IATA believes that due to the complexity and scope of the rule, there is insufficient time for careful consideration by stakeholders. IATA also believes that further time is required for translation and review of the NPRM by foreign repair station operators abroad.
        TSA has decided to grant, in part, PAMA and IATA's requests for an extension and will extend the comment period for thirty (30) days. TSA believes that public awareness of the proposed Aircraft Repair Station Security rulemaking, which began in February 2004 with a public meeting and comment period, has allowed sufficient time for industry consideration. The comment period will now be a total of 90 days and will end on February 19, 2010. This extension will allow the aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals additional time to complete their comments on the NPRM and will enable TSA to continue its efforts to implement final regulations as mandated by 49 U.S.C. 44924.

          Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on December 22, 2009.
          Gale D. Rossides,
          Acting Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E9-30721 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-05-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 2
        [GN Docket No. 18-122; DA 18-446]
        Office of Engineering and Technology, International, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus Seek Comment for Report on the Feasibility of Allowing Commercial Wireless Services, Licensed or Unlicensed, To Use or Share Use of the Frequencies Between 3.7-4.2 GHz

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, and pursuant to the Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act (MOBILE NOW Act), the Office of Engineering and Technology and the International and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus (Bureaus) seek comment for an upcoming Commission report that will address the feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services to use or share use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before May 31, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before June 15, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          To the extent commenters wish to submit materials in the current docket (GN Docket No. 18-122) that are substantially similar to materials filed in other potentially related Commission proceedings (such as GN Docket No. 17-183, RM-11778, and RM-11791), the Commission asks commenters to submit an abbreviated filing that incorporates by reference the relevant arguments from any previously filed material by identifying (a) the previously filed document (with the docket number of the proceeding in which it was filed and the date filed), and (b) the specific arguments in that previously filed document that the commenter is submitting for consideration in the current proceeding. You may submit comments, identified by [GN Docket No. 18-122], by any of the following methods:
           Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 18-122.
           Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the captions of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings in response to this document can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
           All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
           Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

            U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

            People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ariel Diamond, (202) 418-2803, Ariel.Diamond@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On March 23, 2018, Congress passed the FY 2018 omnibus spending bill into law, which includes the MOBILE NOW Act under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act.1
           Section 605(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act requires the Commission to submit a report (3.7-4.2 GHz Report), to appropriate committees of Congress 2
           and to the Secretary of Commerce no later than September 23, 2019, “evaluating the feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services, licensed or unlicensed, to use or share use of the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz.” 3

            1 See Section 601 of the Act. We note that the Act refers to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band as the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz.

            2 Section 602 of the Act defines the appropriate committees of Congress.

            3 See Section 605(b) of the Act.

        The Commission notes that there is currently no federal allocation for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the following questions:
        • How should we assess the operations and possible impacts of sharing on Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band?
        • How might sharing be accomplished, with licensed and/or unlicensed operations, without causing harmful interference to Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band, and in which parts of the band would such sharing be feasible?
        • What other considerations should the Commission take into account in preparing the 3.7-4.2 GHz Report?
        The Act further provides that the report should include an assessment of the operations of Federal entities that operate Federal Government stations authorized to use the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.4

           The Commission intends to consult with National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the heads of each affected Federal agency regarding the Federal entities, stations, and operations in the band, and the required issues and assessments. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

            4 See Section 605(c) of the Act.

        Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

        This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Ex Parte Rules

        This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.5
           Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).

            5 See 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1206.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John Schauble,
          Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2018-10787 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AV51
        [FWS-R4-ES-2008-0058; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Sturgeon (Scaphirhyncus suttkusi)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the extension of the public comment period on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhyncus suttkusi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are extending the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended required determinations following a public hearing that will take place January 28, 2009.

          DATES:

            Written Comments: We will consider comments received on or before February 9, 2009.

            Public Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on January 28, 2009, at the Alabama Southern Community College in Monroeville, AL (see ADDRESSES). The hearing is open to all who wish to provide formal, oral comments regarding the proposed revised critical habitat and will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., central time, with an open house from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., central time.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments 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-R4-ES-2008-0058, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
          • Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held (see DATES) at the Nettles Auditorium at Alabama Southern Community College, 2800 South Alabama Avenue, Monroeville, AL 36460.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeff Powell, Aquatic Species Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Field Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone: 251-441-5858; facsimile: 251-441-6222. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        We published a proposed designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon in the Federal Register on May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30361). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on July 28, 2008.
        On December 30, 2008, we published a proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon and announced the opening of a second public comment period and the scheduling of a public hearing (73 FR 79770). We also announced the availability for public comment of a draft economic analysis and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We further sought comment on our proposal to change the first primary constituent element from its original description because we have determined that the original wording failed to indicate that the flow needs of the species are relative to the season of the year.
        The second comment period was opened for 30 days from December 30, 2008, to January 29, 2008. We are extending the comment period an additional 11 days to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment after the January 28, 2009, public hearing. Our December 30, 2008, revised proposed rule (73 FR 79770) specifies the information that we seek from the public. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparation of the final rule.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Southeast Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: January 15, 2009.
          Lyle Laverty,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E9-1455 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2008-1361; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-140-AD]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 Airplanes and DHC-8-200, -300, and -400 Series Airplanes

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

            A fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device was installed in production on later DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, and on all DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft. On earlier DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, its installation was mandated by [Canadian] Airworthiness Directive CF-2006-13 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-16].
            However, several incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing devices have recently been discovered on in-service aircraft. A pulley and plastic spacer had been inadvertently interchanged during assembly of the device in production, resulting in the spoiler cable sliding on the spacer rather than on the pulley, as designed.
            Continued operation with an incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing device could result in impaired operation of the sensing device and/or an eventual fuselage spoiler cable disconnect, with possible reduced controllability of the aircraft.

        The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 11, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; e-mail thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152.

        Examining the AD Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7305; fax (516) 794-5531.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Comments Invited

        We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-1361; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-140-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.
        We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
        Discussion
        Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-28, dated July 10, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

          A fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device was installed in production on later DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, and on all DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft. On earlier DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, its installation was mandated by [Canadian] Airworthiness Directive CF-2006-13 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-16].
          However, several incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing devices have recently been discovered on in-service aircraft. A pulley and plastic spacer had been inadvertently interchanged during assembly of the device in production, resulting in the spoiler cable sliding on the spacer rather than on the pulley, as designed.
          Continued operation with an incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing device could result in impaired operation of the sensing device and/or an eventual fuselage spoiler cable disconnect, with possible reduced controllability of the aircraft.

        Required actions include inspecting the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device and, if necessary, inspecting components for wear and damage, replacing worn or damaged components, and correctly re-assembling the sensing device. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

        Relevant Service Information
        Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 84-27-34, dated October 3, 2007, and 8-27-107, dated October 16, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
        FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD
        This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
        Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information
        We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
        We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
        Costs of Compliance
        Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 145 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,600, or $80 per product.
        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Findings
        We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

          For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

        1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
        2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
        3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

        The Proposed Amendment
        Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

          PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
          1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

            § 39.13
            [Amended]
            2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

                Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2008-1361; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-140-AD.
              Comments Due Date
              (a) We must receive comments by February 11, 2009.
              Affected ADs
              (b) None.
              Applicability
              (c) This AD applies to the following Bombardier Model DHC-8 airplanes, certificated in any category.
              (1) Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 644 inclusive.
              (2) Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -402 airplanes, serial numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4164 inclusive.
              Subject
              (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
              Reason
              (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

              A fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device was installed in production on later DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, and on all DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft. On earlier DHC-8 Series 100/200/300 aircraft, its installation was mandated by [Canadian] Airworthiness Directive CF-2006-13 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-16].
              However, several incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing devices have recently been discovered on in-service aircraft. A pulley and plastic spacer had been inadvertently interchanged during assembly of the device in production, resulting in the spoiler cable sliding on the spacer rather than on the pulley, as designed.
              Continued operation with an incorrectly assembled spoiler cable disconnect sensing device could result in impaired operation of the sensing device and/or an eventual fuselage spoiler cable disconnect, with possible reduced controllability of the aircraft.

              Required actions include inspecting the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device and, if necessary, inspecting components for wear and damage, replacing worn or damaged components, and correctly re-assembling the sensing device.
              Actions and Compliance
              (f) Unless already done, do the following.
              (1) For Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 561 inclusive: Do the actions required by paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-107, dated October 16, 2007.
              (i) For airplanes on which fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device, Modsum 8Q100898, has been installed as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device for correct assembly.

              (ii) For airplanes on which fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device, Modsum 8Q100898, has not been installed as of the effective date of this AD: Concurrently with the installation of Modsum 8Q100898, inspect the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device for correct assembly.

                Note 1:
                AD 2007-21-16 requires the installation of Modsum 8Q100898.

              (2) For Bombardier Model -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, serial numbers 562 through 644 inclusive: Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device for correct assembly in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-107, dated October 16, 2007.

                Note 2:
                The fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device was installed in production on the airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

              (3) For Bombardier Model DHC 8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, serial numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4164 inclusive: Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect the fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device for correct assembly in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-34 dated October 3, 2007.

                Note 3:
                The fuselage spoiler cable disconnect sensing device was installed in production on the airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.

              (4) For all airplanes: If an incorrectly assembled sensing device is detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, inspect the components, replace worn or damaged components, and correctly re-assemble the sensing device. Do the actions in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part B, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-107, dated October 16, 2007; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-34, dated October 3, 2007; as applicable.
              FAA AD Differences

                Note 4:
                This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference.

              Other FAA AD Provisions
              (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
              (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7305; fax (516) 794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
              (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
              (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
              Related Information
              (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-28, dated July 10, 2008; Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-34, dated October 3, 2007; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-107 dated October 16, 2007; for related information.

                Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 18, 2008.
                Stephen P. Boyd,
                Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-323 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 18
        Marine Mammals: Incidental Take During Specified Activities

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

          SUMMARY:

          Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we, the Fish and Wildlife Service, intend to prepare an EIS to evaluate the effects of authorizing the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), we are currently in the process of developing incidental take regulations for government activities related to the operation of watercraft and watercraft access facilities within the geographic area of the species' range in Florida for a period of not more than five years.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments on the proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that are received by July 25, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:

          1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Jacksonville Field Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to 904/232-2404.
          3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw4_es_jacksonville@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic comment files, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Benjamin, Assistant Field Supervisor Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
            ADDRESSES section), telephone 904/232-2580; or visit our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) (MMPA), sets a general moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products and makes it unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, purchase, sell, export, or offer to purchase, sell, or export, any marine mammal or marine mammal product unless authorized. Take, as defined by section 3(13) of the MMPA means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
        “Harassment” is defined at section 3(18) of the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (16 U.S.C. 1362). You can find other definitions relevant to our proposed action at 50 CFR 18.27(c).
        The MMPA contains exceptions to the moratorium. For example, section 101(a)(5)(A) authorizes the Secretary, upon request by citizens of the United States who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, to allow the incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of a species or stock of marine mammal if certain findings are made and regulations prescribed. The Secretary must find that the total of such taking during the specified time period (not more than five consecutive years each) will have a negligible impact on the species or stock and will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses. The regulations implementing the MMPA define “negligible impact” as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 18.27(c)). If such findings are made, we would then establish specific regulations setting forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and their habitat, and requirements for monitoring and reporting such taking. We have determined that the subsistence provision requiring a finding that the total taking not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses is not applicable to Florida manatees.
        Following promulgation of incidental take regulations, U.S. citizens (including government agencies) could apply for a Letter of Authorization, which, if granted, would authorize incidental take associated with an applicant's activities. Procedures for obtaining a Letter of Authorization are described at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
        The largest known human-related cause of manatee deaths is collisions with watercraft. Between 1976 and 1999, watercraft-related deaths increased at an average of 7.2 percent per year. In 2000 and 2001, watercraft-related deaths accounted for 29 percent and 25 percent, respectively. From 1996 to 2001, watercraft-related deaths have been the highest on record, ranging from 54 to 82.
        In the State of Florida, County, State, and Federal agencies engage in a variety of activities that may result in the incidental, unintentional take of manatees by watercraft. Many of these activities relate to the use and regulation of watercraft operated in Florida waters accessible to manatees, including: (1) Regulating boater behavior on the water (e.g., speed zones and vessel registration); (2) permitting construction of watercraft access facilities (marinas, docks, boat ramps); (3) funding construction of watercraft access facilities; (4) operating watercraft access facilities; and (5) operating watercraft. To date, there is no authorization for the incidental, unintentional death, injury, or harassment of manatees caused by these otherwise legal activities.
        We engage in, or have the authority to engage in, each of the above five categories of activities; therefore, our activities could result in the incidental, unintentional take of manatees. As such, we have initiated development of incidental take regulations for our own activities related to watercraft in Florida. We have also encouraged other Federal and State agencies involved in these same types of activities to join us in this evaluation in order to develop a more comprehensive rule that could address a broader range of activities that may result in watercraft-related take of manatees.
        The Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate the environmental effects of the incidental take regulations, and will evaluate alternatives for structuring and implementing the proposed regulations.

        Persons wishing to provide relevant information and comments regarding this activity should submit these to the above address. For information, please contact the individual identified above in the section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

        Public Comments Solicited
        Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding our preparation of an EIS related to development of incidental take regulations for manatees in Florida. We welcome any and all suggestions, materials, and recommendations to assist and guide us in this endeavor. Specifically, we are seeking:
        • Information on the direct, secondary and cumulative effects of this rulemaking on manatees, manatee habitat, and other aspects of the human environment;
        • Suggestions regarding the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS, including alternatives for structuring the proposed incidental take regulations, and alternatives to incidental take regulations;
        • Information regarding the potential social and economic effects of the proposed regulations;
        • Information on potential mitigative measures, including technological measures, that would result in the least practicable impact on manatees and their habitat; and,
        • Suggested means and measures to report and monitor the effects of incidental take on manatees.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their name and home address from the EIS record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or business, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

          Dated: May 6, 2002.
          Sam D. Hamilton,
          Regional Director, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 02-14326 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P