        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0017; MO 92210-0-0008B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Spot-Tailed Earless Lizard as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the spot-tailed earless lizard (Holbrookia lacerata) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on our  review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the spot-tailed earless lizard is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the spot-tailed earless lizard, including its two subspecies (Holbrookia lacerata lacerata and Holbrookia lacerata subcaudalis). Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before July 25, 2011. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is Eastern Daylight Time on this date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the box that reads “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter the Docket number for this finding, which is [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0017]. Check the box that reads “Open for Comment/Submission,” and then click the Search button. You should then see an icon that reads “Submit a Comment.” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2011-0017]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section below for more details).

          After July 25, 2011, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office; by U.S. mail at 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone (512-490-0057); or by facsimile (512-490-0974). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Information
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the spot-tailed earless lizard from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The biology, range, and population trends of the species and of both its subspecies, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (3) Information related to the specific threats to the spot-tailed earless lizard and both subspecies of the spot-tailed earless lizard.
        If, after the status review,we determine that listing the spot-tailed earless lizard or either of its subspecies is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range currently occupied by the spot-tailed earless lizard, we request data and information on:
        (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species”;
        (2) Where these features are currently found; and
        (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection.
        In addition, we request data and information on “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species” that are “essential to the conservation of the species.” Please provide specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.

        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods 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 you submit 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 supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) 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, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. 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.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
        Petition History
        On January 21, 2010, we received a petition dated January 13, 2010, from Wild Earth Guardians, requesting that the spot-tailed earless lizard be listed as threatened or endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a July 19, 2010, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. This finding addresses the petition.
        Previous Federal Action
        There have been no previous Federal actions related to this species.
        Species Information
        The spot-tailed earless lizard (Holbrookia lacerata) is a small lizard that averages 11.5 to 15.2 centimeters (cm) (4.5 to 6.0 inches (in)) from the nose to the end of the tail, and has been described as the most conspicuously spotted of all earless lizards (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 101).

        The spot-tailed earless lizard is divided into two distinct subspecies, based on morphological (physical) differences and geographic separation (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 101; Dixon 2000, p. 27). The northern spot-tailed earless lizard subspecies, Holbrookia laceratalacerata, has two rows of dark blotches down each side of its back. The dark blotches are often so close together that they appear to be two dark rows down each side of the lizard's back. This subspecies has on average 13 femoral pores, which are openings containing a wax-like material found on the underside of the thighs and are used to leave a scent trail when they rub their legs on the ground. The southern spot-tailed earless lizard, Holbrookia laceratasubcaudalis, has 2 distinct rows of dark blotches down each side of its back and an average of 16 femoral pores under each hind leg.
        We accept the characterization of Holbrookia lacerata lacerate and Holbrookia laceratasubcaudalis as subspecies of the petitioned species, H. lacerata, because they were  properly described in peer-reviewed literature and are recognized as subspecies by knowledgeable herpetologists: H. l. lacerata since 1880, and H. l. subcaudata since 1956 (ITIS 2009, p. 1).

        In addition to the two subspecies having distinct morphological characteristics (Dixon 2000, p. 27), they are separated geographically along the Balcones Escarpment, which is a geologic fault zone in central Texas (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1). It seems that the Balcones Escarpment serves as a barrier to genetic exchange (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1; Hammerson et al. 2007, p. 4). The northern subspecies historically occurred throughout the Edwards Plateau (a geographic region in west-central Texas), while the southern subspecies historically occurred through south Texas into parts of Mexico's States of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1; Conant and Collins 1991, p. 101; Dixon 2000, p. 73; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2005a, p. 1; Hammerson et al. 2007, p. 2). In central and southern Texas, the spot-tailed earless lizard occurs across 75 counties (TPWD 2005a, p. 1). The TPWD's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005b, pp. 1093-1094) suggests that the spot-tailed earless lizard is declining in Texas, especially along the periphery of its range, but does not refer to any specific studies or surveys. Also, the petitioner did not provide any information, and we could not find any readily available in our files, regarding the current species' status or distribution in Mexico. Because population and distribution information is limited throughout the species' range, research is needed to verify the suggested decline in Texas and to determine the species' current distribution.
        The spot-tailed earless lizard is found in a variety of habitats, but typically they use habitat with sparse vegetation or bare ground (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1). Spot-tailed earless lizards inhabit flat and open prairies or meadows, sand dunes, chaparral-shrubland, mixed woodland areas, and graded roads in Texas (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1; TPWD 2005b, p. 1093), as well as the desert habitats of northern Mexico (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1). The lizard tends to burrow in soil, fallen logs, and other ground debris, and avoid obstructions, such as waterways, buildings, and pavement (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1).

        The TPWD (2005a, p. 1093) described differences in habitat associations between the two spot-tailed lizard subspecies. The northern spot-tailed earless lizard apparently prefers caliche soils (hardened deposit of calcium carbonate found in arid regions that cements together other materials, including gravel, sand, clay, and silt) of the Edwards Plateau in moderately open prairie-brushland, oak-juniper woodlands, and mesquite associations. The southern spot-tailed earless lizard is most often found in flatter areas in association with dark clay, clay-loam soils, and in mesquite-prickly-pear associations.
        In conclusion, the spot-tailed earless lizard's present population status is largely unknown. The TPWD suggests that the species may be declining along the periphery of its range, but more surveys are needed to determine the species' current distribution. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive and up to date, we are soliciting information on the species' status and distribution throughout its range.
        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to the spot-tailed earless lizard, as presented in the petition and documented in other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner asserts that the conversion of native habitat to cropland and nonnative grasses for livestock, as well as habitat fragmentation by road construction and development, are threats to the spot-tailed earless lizard.
        In support of the conversion of native habitat to cropland and nonnative grasses for livestock, the petitioner cited NatureServe (2009, pp. 1-2) and TPWD's Conservation Wildlife Strategy (2005a, p. 1094), which mentioned that the eastern portion of the species' historical range is now used for agricultural production.
        Also, in support of its assertion that the species is threatened by habitat fragmentation from road construction and development, the petitioner presented data adapted from the U.S. Census Bureau showing that the total human population of the counties included within the spot-tailed earless lizard's historical range increased by 33 percent between 1990 and 2008, to over 6.2 million people (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Additionally, the petitioner stated that 5 counties in Texas (Williamson, Hays, Comal, Kendall, and Guadalupe) within the lizard's historical range are among the 100 fastest growing counties in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, pp. 1-5).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        In reference to the petitioner's claims concerning the conversion of native habitat to cropland and nonnative grasses for livestock, the information presented appears to be reliable.The petitioner cited TPWD's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, which noted that the spread of nonnative grasses is a problem in Texas (TPWD 2005b, p. 88). However, the petitioner provided no information indicating how the spread of nonnative grasses may be acting on the species. Also, the petitioner provided no information on the conversion of native habitat to cropland, the extent to which this may be occurring within the range of the species, or how this might impact the spot-tailed earless lizard. Therefore, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that conversion of native habitat to cropland or nonnative grasses for livestock may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, and our files do not contain any information to support the petitioner's claims.
        In reference to the petitioner's claim that habitat fragmentation by road construction and development is a threat to the species, the information appears reliable. The petitioner referenced human population growth in conjunction with habitat fragmentation by road construction, but provided no information indicating how this potential threat may be acting on the species. Also, we have no information available in our files indicating that the spot-tailed earless lizard's movements are inhibited by roads or that roads are acting as barriers to the lizard. Based on the above, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that habitat fragmentation by road construction and development may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard.

        We believe that crossing highways may result in mortality to individual lizards; however, there is no evidence indicating that road-related mortalities are having an impact on the species'status. We believe the impact of road-related mortality is minimal because of the species' small home range size. In a similar species, Jones and Droge (1980, pp. 127-132) found that the mean home range of the lesser earless lizard (Holbrookia maculata) was less than 1 acre (0.4 hectare). Therefore, it's likely that the spot-tailed earless lizard would have to be living right next to a road for the possibility of a road-related mortality to occur. We have no information readily available in our files and the petitioner provided no information indicating that road-related mortalities may have an impact on the species' overall status. Based on the above, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that road-related mortalities may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard.

        In summary, we find that the petition, along with information readily available in our files, has not presented substantial information that the spot-tailed earless lizard may warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition states that the extent of impacts due to this factor is currently unknown and suggests that the Service should investigate whether collection of the spot-tailed earless lizard for scientific purposes or for the pet trade is a threat to this species.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        We currently have no information readily available in our files that suggests that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may be a threat to this species.Therefore, we find that the petition, along with information available in our files, has not presented substantial information that the spot-tailed earless lizard may warrant listing due to this factor.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner asserts that the redimported fire ant (Solenopsisinvicta) (fire ant), a nonnative species, is a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard. In support of this threat, the petitioner cited Hammerson et al. (2007, p. 6), which stated that the existence of fire ants in the spot-tailed earless lizard's habitat is a threat to the species. Also, the petitioner provided a map showing that the current range of the fire ant covers the entire current spot-tailed earless lizard rangein Texas (USDA 2006, p. 1).The petitioner states that fire ants prey on reptiles and their eggs, and are reportedly contributing to the decline of native species (Reagan et al. 2000, pp. 475-478; Allen et al. 2004, pp. 88-103). Fire ants also prey on hatchlings and adult animals (Wojcik et al. 2001, pp. 16-23).

        Additionally, the petitioner noted that habitat disturbances can lead to invasions by fire ants across specific locations (Zettler et al. 2004, p. 517). Fire ant colonies multiply in disturbed and early-succession areas, such as woody debris in clearcut areas (Todd et al. 2008, p. 540). Thus, clear cutting in spot-tailed earless lizard woodland habitat could trigger fire ant invasions. Further, the petitioner provided support by citing Todd et al. (2008, p. 540), which noted that spot-tailed earless lizards burrow into fallen logs and other ground debris, and use these substrates as escape habitat or cover in harsh environmental conditions, but these habitats can function as a trap for the lizards in areas where fire ants have invaded.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        In reference to the petitioner's claims that the fire ant is a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the petitioner provided no information and we have none readily available in our files concerning the spread of the fire ant over the spot-tailed earless lizard's range in Mexico. However, information readily available in our files supports the petitioner's claim that the current range of the fire ant covers the entire current spot-tailed earless lizard range in Texas.

        Information in our files also indicates that fire ant predation may be a factor that is negatively impacting the overall status of the spot-tailed earless lizard. The fire ant is an aggressive and indiscriminate predator that can have devastating and longlasting impacts on native populations and communities (Vinson and Sorenson 1986, p. 17; Porter and Savignano 1990, p. 2095). The petitioner provided references that support the claim that fire ants predate on eggs, hatchlings, and adults of a variety of species, including lizards (Wojcik et al. 2001, pp. 19-20). Although there is no direct information on the decline of the spot-tailed earless lizard due to fire ant predation, the information presented about other reptiles, in addition to the aggressive and indiscriminate predatory nature of the fire ant, leads us to believe there may be negative impacts to the spot-tailed earless lizard. It is likely that fire ants are preying on adults, hatchlings, and eggs of spot-tailed earless lizards. Therefore, information provided by the petitioner and readily available in our files constitutes substantial information indicating that fire ants may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard.

        Regarding the petitioner's claim that habitat disturbances can lead to invasions by fire ants across specific locations, the information provided appears reliable. A study by Todd et al. (2008, pp. 542-545) found that fire ant abundance increases with disturbances to native species habitat. Porter et al. (1988, p. 916) reported that the invasion of fire ants is known to be aided by any disturbance that clears a site of heavy vegetation and disrupts the native ant community. Therefore, it is likely that disturbances such as a clear cutting can trigger fire ant invasions.
        In summary, there is substantial information on the adverse effects of fire ants on native fauna in general, including reptiles, and substantial information  that fire ants may pose a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard through direct predation on adults, hatchlings, and eggs. In addition, there is substantial information that fire ants occur across a large part of the spot-tailed earless lizard's range. Therefore, we find that the information provided in the petition, along with information readily available in our files, has presented substantial information indicating that the species may warrant listing due to predation, primarily by the fire ant.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner asserts that the spot-tailed earless lizard has no regulatory protection. Yet, the petitioner also cites NatureServe (2009, p. 2) and states that one to two spot-tailed earless lizard populations are appropriately protected and managed. Other citations provided by the petitioner include the IUCN's Red List Ranks (Hammerson et al. 2007) and TPWD's Wildlife Conservation Strategy (TPWD 2005b).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        In reference to the petitioner's claim that the lack of regulatory protection is a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the petitioner provided no information indicating how this potential impact may be acting on the species. We have identified the fire ant as a potential threat, but we are not aware of any regulatory mechanism that would address this potential threat. Therefore, we find that neither the petition nor information readily available in our files presented substantial information that the species may warrant listing due to the inadequacy of existing regulator mechanisms.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioner asserts that pollutants, obstructions to movement, and climate change are threats to the spot-tailed earless lizard. In support of pollutants being a threat, the petitioner stated that the most severe threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard's survival is the use of agricultural pesticides and herbicides (NatureServe 2009, p. 1). Also, the petitioner pointed out that environmental pollutants are likely major threats to reptiles around the globe and gave examples of the adverse effects of carbaryl (a chemical in the carbonate family used chiefly as an insecticide) on locomotion, energy use, and overall fitness of terrestrial lizards (DuRant 2006, pp. 39-41; DuRant et al. 2007a, pp. 446-447; DuRant et al. 2007b, pp. 20-23) and atrazine's (an organic compound used as an herbicide) possible effect as an endocrine disruptor in reptiles (Deb 2005, p. 401).
        In support of obstructions to movement being a threat, the petitioner asserted that spot-tailed earless lizards that try to cross highways usually do not survive (NatureServe 2009, p. 1). In addition, the petitioner alleges that buildings, pavement, human structures, rivers, ponds, and lakes are barriers to the lizard's movement, but no other evidence or references are provided to indicate whether the spot-tailed earless lizard is exposed to the barriers or whether the species responds to these barriers in a way that causes actual impacts to the species.

        In regards to climate change being a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the petitioner cited studies on the potential adverse effects of climate change. For example, the petitioner claims that climate change is expected to cause more extreme and frequent weather events that include droughts, heavy rainfall, and heat waves (Karl et al. 2009, p. 126). The petitioner further states that climate-driven changes are likely to combine with other human-induced stresses to increase the vulnerability of natural ecosystems to pests, invasive species, and loss of native species (Karl et al. 2009, p. 126). Fischlin et al. (2007, pp. 224-226) proposed that the productivity, structure, and carbon balance of grassland ecosystems are extremely sensitive to climatic shifts. Root and Schneider (2002, pp. 29-30) addressed how climate is likely to affect animals with habitat associations in particular vegetation types. The ranges of animals relying on plant communities could become compressed, and in some instances, both the plants and the animals could become extinct (Root and Schneider 2002, pp. 29-30).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        In reference to the petitioner's claim that pollutants may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the information appears reliable. References cited in the petition on the effects of carbonate are studies on the western fence lizard (Sceloporusoccidentalis), which is in the same family as the spot-tailed earless lizard (DuRant 2006, pp. 39-41; DuRant et al. 2007a, pp. 446-447; DuRant et al. 2007b, pp. 20-23). Because the lizards are in the same family, it is plausible to assume that if the spot-tailed earless lizard is exposed to carbonate pollutants, similar results to exposure to the pesticides would likely occur. Also, the reference to atrazine is only a very general reference to reptiles (Deb 2005, p. 401), but it does suggest that the pesticide could act as an endocrine disruptor in the spot-tailed earless lizard. However, the petition does not provide information on the current or historical use of these pesticides or any other agricultural pesticides within the spot-tailed earless lizard's range, and we have no information readily available in our files indicating the extent of use of these pollutants in the species' range, or if these pollutants may be having an impact on the spot-tailed earless lizard. Consequently, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that pollutants may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard.
        In reference to the petitioner's claim that obstruction to movements is a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the petitioner did not provide reliable data to support their claim. We previously addressed the petitioner's claims regarding roads as a threat under Factor A above. Concerning other barriers to movement, the petitioner provided no information indicating how these potential impacts may be acting on the species. Therefore, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that obstruction to movement may be a threat to the species.

        In reference to the petitioner's claim that climate change is a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard, the information appears to be reliable. However, the petitioner provided references to studies that discussed climate change in general terms, that discussed the potential impacts of climate change in areas outside of the spot-tailed earless lizard's range, and that discussed the potential impacts of climate change on unrelated species. No information was provided by the petitioner indicating whether the spot-tailed earless lizard might be sensitive to environmental changes resulting from climate change, and no information was provided regarding the extent of potential exposure of the spot-tailed earless lizard to climate change impacts. The petitioner cited Root and Schneider (2002, pp. 29-30) who addressed how climate is likely to affect animals with habitat associations in particular vegetation types. However, the spot-tailed earless lizard is found in a variety of habitats across a broad geographic range (Axtell 1968, p. 56.1; Conant and Collins 1991, p. 101; Dixon 2000, p. 73; TPWD 2005a, p. 1; Hammerson et al. 2007, p. 2). Also, it is hypothesized that plant and animal communities are generally expected to shift toward the poles or increase in altitude with increasing global temperatures and drought conditions (Parmesan et al. 2000, p. 443; Cameron and Scheel 2001, p. 676; Root and Schneider 2002, pp. 22-23; Karl et al. 2009, pp. 72, 132). We believe that increasing global temperatures and drought conditions may have little impact on spot-tailed earless lizards, because the species is physiologically and behaviorally well adapted to warm, arid landscapes. Therefore, based on the above information, the petitioner has not provided substantial information indicating that the environmental changes associated with climate change may be a threat to the spot-tailed earless lizard.
        In summary, we find that the petition, along with information readily available in our files, did not present substantial information that the spot-tailed earless lizard may warrant listing due to other natural or manmade factors.
        Finding
        On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing both the northern and southern subspecies of the spot-tailed earless lizard throughout their entire ranges may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factor C, the potential threat from fire ant predation.
        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the spot-tailed earless lizard may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the spot-tailed earless lizard under the Act is warranted.

        The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 17, 2011.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-12752 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-1607, MB Docket No. 03-233, RM-10699]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Pocatello, ID

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, dismissal.

          SUMMARY:

          The Commission, by this document, dismisses a petition for rule making filed by Compass Communications of Idaho, Inc., proposing the allotment of DTV channel 38 at Pocatello, Idaho. See 68 FR 66781, November 28, 2003. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 03-233, adopted June 2, 2004, and released June 9, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this proposed rule was dismissed.)

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Barbara A. Kreisman,
          Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-15000 Filed 6-30-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 192
        [Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0136]
        Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Gas Pipeline Safety Advisory Committee

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of advisory committee meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces a public meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will meet to discuss a proposed rulemaking to address regulatory requirements for onshore gas transmission and gathering pipelines.

          DATES:
          The committee will meet on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Thursday, December 8, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST.

          The meetings will not be web cast; however, presentations will be available on the meeting Web site and posted on the E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov under docket number PHMSA-2016-0136 within 30 days following the meeting.

          ADDRESSES:

          The meeting will be held at a location yet to be determined in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. The meeting location, agenda and any additional information will be published on the following pipeline advisory committee meeting and registration page at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=121.

        Public Participation

        This meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to register at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=121 no later than December 1, 2016, in order to facilitate entry and guarantee seating. Members of the public who attend in person will also be provided an opportunity to make a statement during the meeting.

          Written comments: Persons who wish to submit written comments on the meeting may be submitted to the docket in the following ways:

          E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency.

          Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

          Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

          Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

          Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2016-0136 at the beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Anyone can 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.). Therefore, consider reviewing DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or view the Privacy Notice at http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any such comments.

          Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2016-0136.” The Docket Clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
        Privacy Act Statement

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

          Services for Individuals with Disabilities: The public meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Cheryl Whetsel at cheryl.whetsel@dot.gov by December 1, 2016.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information about the meeting, contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-4431 or by email at cheryl.whetsel@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Meeting Details and Agenda

        The GPAC will be discussing the proposed rule, “Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines” published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2016, (81 FR 20722) and on the associated regulatory analysis. PHMSA is proposing changes to part 192 which include:
        • Requiring periodic assessments of pipelines in locations where persons are expected to be at risk that are not already covered under the integrity management program requirements;
        • Modifying the repair criteria, both inside and outside of high consequence areas (HCAs);
        • Requiring inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events;
        • Providing additional specificity for inline inspection, including explicit requirements to account for uncertainty of reported inspection data when evaluating inline inspection data to identify anomalies;
        • Expanding integrity assessment methods to explicitly address guided wave ultrasonic inspection, and excavation with direct in-situ examination;
        • Providing clearer functional requirements for conducting risk assessment for integrity management, including addressing seismic risk;
        • Expanding the mandatory data collection and integration requirements for integrity management, including data validation and seismicity;
        • Adding requirements to address Management of Change;
        • Repealing the use of API 80 for gathering lines;
        • Applying Type B requirements to newly regulated Type A gathering lines in Class 1 locations to > 8-inch along with emergency requirements (GAO Recommendation 14-667);
        • Extending the reporting requirements to all gathering lines;
        • Expanding requirements for corrosion protection to specify additional post-construction quality checks, and periodic operational and maintenance checks to address coating integrity, cathodic protection, and gas quality monitoring;
        • Requiring operators to report MAOP Exceedance;
        • Requiring safety features on Launchers and Receivers;
        • Adding certain types of roadways to definition of “identified sites” (NTSB P-14-1); and
        • Addressing grandfather pipe; and pipe with inadequate records.
        The Agenda will be published on the PHMSA Web site.
        II. Committee Background
        The GPAC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline safety standards and risk assessments for transporting gas and for gas pipeline facilitiesnatural gas pipelines. The committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended) and 49 U.S.C. 60115. The committee consists of 15 members—with membership evenly divided among the federal and state governments, the regulated industry, and the general public. The committees advise PHMSA on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard.

          Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
          Alan K. Mayberry,
          Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety

      [FR Doc. 2016-28065 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 252
        RIN 0750-AF58
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Taxpayer Identification Numbers (DFARS Case 2006-D037)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for validation of Taxpayer Identification Numbers as part of the Central Contractor Registration process. The proposed changes are consistent with changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before March 23, 2007, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D037, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2006-D037 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Felisha Hitt, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Felisha Hitt, (703) 602-0310.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        DFARS 252.204-7004 contains a substitute paragraph for use with the clause at FAR 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration, to address DoD-unique requirements relating to contractor registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database.
        Item I of Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-10, published at 71 FR 36923 on June 28, 2006, amended the clause at FAR 52.204-7 to include requirements for the Government to validate a contractor's Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), and for the contractor to consent to this validation, as part of the CCR registration process.
        This proposed rule amends DFARS 252.204-7004 to address TIN validation, for consistency with the changes made to FAR 52.204-7.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule relates to an administrative requirement for TIN validation, which is performed by the Government. Contractors need only provide consent for TIN validation as part of the CCR registration process. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D037.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Part 252 as follows:

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 252 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          2. Section 252.204-7004 is amended as follows:
          a. By revising the section heading, clause title, and clause date; and
          b. In paragraph (a), by revising the definition of “Registered in the CCR database” to read as follows:

            252.204-7004
            Alternate A, Central Contractor Registration.
            Alternate A, Central Contractor Registration (XXX 2007)

            (a) * * *
            “Registered in the CCR database” means that—
            (1) The Contractor has entered all mandatory information, including the DUNS number or the DUNS+4 number, into the CCR database;
            (2) The Contractor's CAGE code is in the CCR database; and
            (3) The Government has validated all mandatory data fields, to include validation of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) with the Internal Revenue Service, and has marked the records “Active.” The Contractor will be required to provide consent for TIN validation to the Government as part of the CCR registration process.

       [FR Doc. E7-736 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Chapter V
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0090], Notice 3
        Federal Automated Vehicles Policy

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA is announcing a public meeting to seek input specifically on the Model State Policy and Modern Regulatory Tools sections of the recently released Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (the Policy). The Policy is guidance that seeks to speed the delivery of an initial regulatory framework for highly automated vehicles (HAVs) as well as encourage conformance with best practices to guide manufacturers and other entities in the safe design, development, testing, and deployment of HAVs.
          The Model State Policy builds on collective knowledge gathered from safety stakeholders, and is intended to help avoid a patchwork of inconsistent laws and regulations. It outlines States' roles in regulating HAVs and lays out model procedures and requirements for use by States that wish to enact laws governing HAVs.
          The Modern Regulatory Tools section includes potential new tools and authorities that could help NHTSA overcome the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities involved in the safe and expeditious development of HAVs.
          Held in two distinct parts, the public meeting in the morning session will be an open listening session for the Model State Policy. In the afternoon session, there will be moderated panel discussions on the Modern Regulatory Tools. All comments during the public meeting will be oral.

          DATES:

          NHTSA will hold the public meeting on December 12, 2016, in Arlington, VA. The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. local time. Check-in will begin at 8 a.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to be seated by 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:

          The meeting will be held at the United States Army Conference and Event Center (CEC), located at 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201 (Courthouse Metro Station). This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting will also be webcast live, and a link to the webcast will be available through http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/av/index.html.

            Docket: A docket (NHTSA-2016-0090) was created as an option for members of the public to submit written comments on the Policy. The formal docket comment period closed on November 22, 2016. Additional comments may still be submitted. Comments not received in time to be considered in the next iteration of the document will be considered in a future iteration of it. For access to the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.

            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), you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact Ms. Yvonne Clarke, Program Assistant, Office of Vehicle Safety Research at (202) 366-1845 or by email at av_info_nhtsa@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On September 20, 2016, DOT released the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (the Policy). The Policy is intended to ensure automated vehicle technologies are safely introduced and achieve their full safety potential by removing possible roadblocks to the integration of innovative automotive technology. The full Policy can be found at www.nhtsa.gov/AV.

        Following publication of the Policy and during the open comment period of the Policy, NHTSA held the first in a series of public meetings on November 10, 2016. The morning session of the meeting focused on all four sections of the Policy: Section I: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, Section II: Model State Policy, Section III: NHTSA's Current Regulatory Tools, and Section IV: Modern Regulatory Tools. Comments were presented in an open listening session forum. The afternoon session focused specifically on the Safety Assessment, included under Section I: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles. NHTSA extended invitations to specific organizations and individuals to ensure a broad perspective regarding submission of a Safety Assessment Letter. The session closed with opening the floor for further comments as desired.
        Meeting
        NHTSA is seeking input through this series of public meetings to further refine the Policy. The public meeting on December 12, 2016, the second in the series, is being held to provide individuals an opportunity to offer oral feedback regarding the following sections of the Policy: Section II: Model State Policy and Section IV: Modern Regulatory Tools.
        During the morning session, the agency will seek input specifically on Section II: Model State Policy. This session will focus on gathering feedback regarding how the States, manufacturers, and other entities have understood and interpreted the Model State Policy. States have already begun passing laws and developing regulations surrounding HAVs. A national dialogue is necessary to gather additional information on any potential challenges foreseen, suggestions for clarification, and recommended improvements to assist in avoiding a patchwork of inconsistent laws and regulations. The session will be an open listening session in which individuals or organizations can register to speak or, if time permits, provide oral comments at the conclusion of the morning session.
        During the afternoon session of the meeting, the Agency will seek specific input on Section IV: Modern Regulatory Tools. This section identifies potential new regulatory tools and statutory authorities that may aid the safe and efficient deployment of new lifesaving technologies. This session will focus on gathering feedback on the new tools and authorities discussed in this section, as well as other ideas and suggestions to assist in the safe development, testing, and deployment of HAVs. This session will consist of six moderated panels. Each panel will run approximately 35 minutes and be guided by questions appropriate for the topic at hand. Panels will focus on the following subject areas:

          Panel I: Safety Assurance: Tools to demonstrate that entities design, manufacturing, and testing processes apply the NHTSA performance guidance, industry best practices, and other performance criteria and standards to assure the safe operation of motor vehicles, before those vehicles are deployed on public roads.

          Panel II: Pre-Market Approval Authority: Pre-market approval is a substantially different regulatory approach than the current self-certification used by NHTSA. The discussion provided in the Policy is a preliminary exploration of issues and not intended as an endorsement.

          Panel III: Imminent Hazard Authority: This authority would enable NHTSA to require manufacturers to take immediate action to mitigate safety risks deemed imminent hazards.

          Panel IV: Expanded Exemption Authority for HAVs: Expanded exemption authority could change the volume and or time limit of the existing exemption authority to allow for greater flexibility and increase opportunities for data collection, analysis, and planning.

          Panel V: Post-Sale Tools To Regulate Software Changes: Post-Sale updates in software could substantially change the functionality and operation that HAVs had when they were certified at the time of their manufacture. Additional tools may be useful in monitoring and regulating such updates.

          Panel VI: Tools: The Policy highlights multiple tools that could potentially be used in safe deployment if given authority or clarification: Variable test procedures to ensure behavioral competence and avoid gaming of tests, functional and system safety, regular reviews for making agency testing protocols iterative and forward-looking, additional record keeping/reporting, and enhanced data collection tools.

          Registration is necessary for all attendees. Attendees, including those who do not plan to make any oral remarks at the meeting, should register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/152ETANkzDa62u2_b5AkuC1Qj00xDMKP292AYZk03R78/edit by December 9, 2016. Please provide your name, email address, and affiliation, indicate if you wish to offer oral technical remarks, and please indicate whether you require accommodations such as a sign language interpreter. Space is limited, so advanced and early registration is highly encouraged.

        Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer technical remarks, there will not be time for attendees to make audio-visual presentations during the meeting. Additionally, NHTSA may not be able to accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral remarks. NHTSA will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the meeting. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. The transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available.
        Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants.
        Draft Meeting Agenda
        8:00-8:30 a.m.—Arrival/Check-In
        8:30-8:45 a.m.—Welcome/Important Notices/Format
        8:45-9:00 a.m.—NHTSA Leadership Address
        9:00-12:00 p.m.—Open Listening Session on Section II: Model State Policy
        12:00-1:00 p.m.—Lunch (on your own)/Arrival/Check-In
        1:00-1:35 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel I: Safety Assurance
        1:35-2:10 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel II: Pre-Market Approval
        2:10-2:45 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel III: Imminent Hazard Authority
        2:45-3:00 p.m.—Break
        3:00-3:35 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel IV: Expanded Exemption Authority
        3:35-4:10 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel V: Post Sale Tools to Regulate Software Changes
        4:10-4:45 p.m.—Modern Regulatory Tools—Panel VI: Tools
        4:45-5:00 p.m.—Closing Remarks/Adjourn
        Morning Session Meeting Topic
        The morning session of the meeting will be an open listening session and an opportunity for individuals to offer oral remarks on Section II: Model State Policy of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (the Policy). This section describes the responsibilities of both the Federal and State governments in regards to the regulation of HAVs and recommends policy areas for States to consider for the validation, testing, and deployment of highly automated vehicles with the goal of generating a consistent national framework.
        Specifically, commenters are asked to discuss the following topics at the meeting:
        • Content
        The agency seeks comment on the content included within the Model State Policy:
        Are there any areas within the Model State Policy that need additional clarification?
        Are there any gaps that you have identified in the Model State Policy?
        What barriers or challenges do you foresee that might hinder the ability for implementation of the guidance?
        • The Federal and State Roles
        The agency seeks comment on the Federal and State Roles portion of the Model State Policy. Does the Policy clearly identify the appropriate roles and division of regulatory responsibilities for motor vehicle operations between Federal and State authorities?
        • Application for Manufacturers or Other Entities To Test HAVs on Public Roadways
        The agency seeks comment on the amount and type of information that a jurisdiction would deem appropriate to receive from NHTSA that would identify that each vehicle used for testing by manufacturers or other entities follows the Performance Guidance set forth by NHTSA and meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?
        • Liability and Insurance
        States are responsible for determining liability rules for HAVs. For example, if a HAV is determined to be at fault in a crash then who should be held liable? For Insurance, States need to determine who (owner, operator, passenger, manufacturer, etc.) must carry motor vehicle insurance. What additional insurance and liability issues have States identified? Would it be desirable for NHTSA to create a commission to study such and make recommendations to the States?
        Afternoon Session Meeting Topic
        The afternoon session of the meeting provides an opportunity for invited individuals to comment on Section IV: Modern Regulatory Tools. This session will consist of six moderated panels. The panels will run approximately 35 minutes and be guided by questions appropriate for the topics at hand: Panel I: Safety Assurance, Panel II: Pre-Market Approval Authority, Panel III: Imminent Hazard Authority, Panel IV: Expanded Exemption Authority for HAVs, Panel V: Post-Sale Tools To Regulate Software Changes, and Panel VI: Tools. This section identifies potential new regulatory tools and statutory authorities that may aid the safe and efficient deployment of new lifesaving technologies.

          Nathaniel Beuse,
          Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.

      [FR Doc. 2016-28628 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        RIN 1018-AV14
        Migratory Bird Permits; Religious or Spiritual Use of Feathers by Native Americans

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment; request for comments and information.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering amending its migratory bird regulations to allow Native Americans to acquire parts and feathers from birds other than eagles for religious or spiritual use. No current regulations govern the acquisition and possession of migratory bird parts and feathers of birds other than eagles for Native American religious or spiritual use. We have a compelling interest in protecting the traditional religious and spiritual resource values of Native Americans as part of our trust relationship with federally recognized Native American tribes. We recognize the need to balance this compelling reason against the equally compelling basis for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We seek information necessary to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations for a possible proposed rule.

          DATES:
          To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments and suggestions on or before August 14, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:

            Viewing Comments: If you wish to view the complete file for this action, including comments and materials submitted by others, you may call (612) 713-5436 to make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view materials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111.

            Submitting Comments: When submitting comments, refer to RIN 1018-AV14 and please include your name and return address. Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods:
          1. U.S. Mail: Andrea Kirk, Permits Administrator, Migratory Birds (use address above);
          2. E-mail: otherfeathers@fws.gov;

          3. Submit comments via http://www.regulations.gov and reference RIN 1018-AV14; or
          4. Fax: (612) 713-7179.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Andrea Kirk, Permits Administrator, Migratory Birds—Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are the Federal agency with the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority is based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Activities with migratory birds are prohibited unless specifically authorized by regulation. Regulations governing the issuance of permits for migratory bird use are authorized by the MBTA and are found in title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 10, 13, 21, and 22. According to 50 CFR 21.11, permits are required for most actions involving “any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such bird.”
        The MBTA contains no express provisions regarding the religious/spiritual use of migratory bird feathers. However, we recognize the significance of the parts and feathers to Native American religious/spiritual practices under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996; AIRFA), a policy statement issued by Secretary of the Interior C.B. Morton in 1975, and our 1994 Native American Policy. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), passed in 1978, clarifies U.S. policy pertaining to the protection of Native American religious freedom. AIRFA acknowledges prior infringement on the right of freedom of religion for Native Americans and clearly states that laws passed for other purposes are not meant to restrict the rights of Native Americans. The Morton policy statement provides Native Americans protection from Federal prosecution, harassment, or other interference for their possession, transport, use, donation, exchange, or loan of the feathers of federally protected species without compensation. The Morton policy statement also protects Native Americans who wish to possess bird parts and/or feathers to be worked on by tribal craftsmen for eventual use in religious/spiritual activities and allows the transfer of parts and/or feathers to tribal craftsmen without charge.
        Our 1994 Native American Policy states that we must expedite processing and distribution of animal parts to Native Americans. Between 1990 and 2000, our National Eagle Repository distributed eagle parts and feathers to enrolled tribal members. Regulations governing permits for use of eagle parts and feathers are in 50 CFR Part 22. The Repository also distributed migratory bird parts and feathers from birds other than eagles to enrolled tribes. We conducted this distribution on an ad-hoc basis under the authority of 50 CFR 21.27, Special Purpose Permits, with no criteria or conditions specific to Native American religious or spiritual use. In 1999, we temporarily suspended distribution of non-eagle feathers, due to administrative resource constraints. We now intend to prepare an environmental assessment for a possible proposed regulation for the legal acquisition by Native Americans of non-eagle feathers for religious/spiritual use.
        Environmental Assessment
        We intend to prepare an assessment in order to analyze the potential impacts of various alternatives for establishing a legal mechanism for the acquisition of non-eagle feathers by Native Americans for religious/spiritual purposes. We will assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that may result from different alternatives for legalizing the acquisition of these feathers, including impacts to Native American culture and religion. We particularly solicit comments on the following topics (most of these are discussed further following the list):
        (1) The source(s) of the parts and feathers that we would make available;
        (2) What criteria or conditions we should establish for individuals to be eligible to receive the migratory bird parts and feathers;
        (3) How different means of legal acquisition may affect Native American tribes;
        (4) How Native American tribes could be affected if we extend such authorization to other persons in addition to enrolled members of federally recognized Native American tribes;
        (5) The extent of Native American demand for the parts and feathers;
        (6) Whether the types of feathers being requested should be limited to those historically significant to the tribe acquiring them;
        (7) Which species of migratory birds are most valuable for Native American religious/spiritual purposes;
        (8) Potential impacts to migratory bird populations and other wildlife; and
        (9) Other concerns the public may have related to this initiative.
        Further discussion of selected items from above list follows:
        (1) Sources. The sources of the parts and feathers to be made available is one of the primary concerns of this notice. The merits of centralized availability, such as the National Eagle Repository, versus decentralized availability, the extent to which tribes will have access and input into the source availability and eventual acquisition, and the various avenues for acquiring the feathers and parts are issues upon which we seek comments, suggestions, and guidance from interested parties.
        (2) Eligibility. The MBTA, unlike the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a), does not provide for possession of migratory birds for religious/spiritual purposes by Native American tribes, regardless of whether or not they are members of recognized tribes. However, we have traditionally limited access to migratory birds and their parts to enrolled members of recognized tribes. We seek input on the potential impacts of providing legal access to non-eagle feathers for religious/spiritual use to individuals other than enrolled members of recognized tribes, including impacts to enrolled tribal members, members of non-recognized tribes, or other affected parties.
        (3) Means. We will look favorably upon methods that involve decentralized availability and recognize tribal autonomy. We seek a solution that will uphold the MBTA without placing a burden on our resources.
        (4) Demand. We seek input, suggestions, and comments on possible uses, the frequency and pervasiveness of these uses, and an estimation of the demand upon the resource for these uses.
        (5) Wildlife Population and Habitat Impacts. We do not expect to authorize any means of acquisition that would affect migratory bird or wildlife populations or impact wildlife habitat. We do not anticipate take from the wild of live birds through hunting or any other method. However, we seek input, comments, and suggestions on this issue.

          Authority:
          The authorities for this notice are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a).

          Dated: May 29, 2007.
          David M. Verhey,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E7-11559 Filed 6-14-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 101702B]
        RIN:0648-AP92
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Recordkeeping and Reporting Changes to the Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ) for Pacific Halibut and Sablefish

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability (NOA) of Amendments 72/64 to fishery management plans; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 72 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Amendment 64 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.  Amendments 72/64 would implement revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting (R and R) regulations established to monitor and enforce the IFQ Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries in and off Alaska.  The purpose of this action is to reduce reporting burden for processors and registered buyers, while maintaining existing data collection, monitoring, and enforcement capabilities.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendments 72 and 64 must be received at the following address by December 27, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on Amendments 72/64 may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Gravel-Durall.  Hand delivery or courier delivery of comments may be sent to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th St., Room 453, Juneau, AK  99801.  Copies of Amendments 72/64 and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7228, patsy.bearden@noaa.gov

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and a 60-day comment period (see section 304(a)(1)(B).
        Amendments 72/64 were adopted by the Council in April 2002.  If approved by NMFS, these amendments would be combined with regulatory amendments that would relieve some RR requirements for the IFQ fisheries.  The amendments are necessary to comply with National Standard 7 (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7)), which states, “Conservation and Management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.”  The proposed action that would require FMP amendment is as follows:  Eliminate the vessel clearance requirement and replace it with a verbal “departure report” prior to leaving the jurisdiction of the Council.  This action would modify the requirement in the BSAI and GOA FMPs for vessels with IFQ sablefish catch leaving the jurisdiction of the Council to check in with NMFS at a certified port and have the vessel's hold sealed prior to departure.  This action makes no change in current management practices in the IFQ fisheries.  This action would relieve some reporting burden and operational restrictions on vessels by allowing vessels leaving the jurisdiction of the Council to provide a verbal “departure report” rather than going to a specific port for a vessel clearance.  Enforcement personnel are not currently able to effectively determine catch quantity at the vessel clearance port and are unable to seal a vessel's hold without compromising vessel safety.  Thus, from a monitoring and enforcement perspective, no effective difference exists between a verbal “departure report” and the verbal vessel clearance report.  This action could reduce the time vessels are required to stay in port and could reduce operating costs for vessels that are landing catch in locations outside of Alaska.  This action would also amend the FMPs to ensure that the scope of the FMPs is within the practical limitations of enforcement to meet the requirements of the FMPs.  This action, if adopted, modifies existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

        Public comments are being solicited on the amendments through the end of the comment period stated in this NOA.  A proposed rule that would implement the amendments as well as regulatory amendments proposing other changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the IFQ fisheries will be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendments 72/64 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments, whether specifically directed to the amendments or the proposed rule.  Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments.  To be considered in the approval/disapproval decision, comments must be received by the close of business on the last day of the comment period specified in this NOA; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Dated:   October 23, 2002.
          Bruce C. Moorehead
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-27512 Filed 10-28-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S