82 FR 60211 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Incidental Take Permit Application; Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs and Environmental Assessment
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 242 (December 19, 2017)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 242 (December 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 60211-60212 | |
| FR Document | 2017-27250 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 60211-60212] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-27250] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073; FF06E23000-178-FXES11140600000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Incidental Take Permit Application; Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs and Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the following documents for review and comment by the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments:Draft Range-wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (GCP); Draft Implementing Agreement for the GCP; and Draft Environment Assessment of the GCP (EA). We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for issuing permits to authorize take of Utah prairie dogs incidental to development activities within the range of the species in Utah. The draft GCP is designed to streamline incidental take permit authorization for many types of development activities while conserving the species. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we also prepared a draft EA that analyzes the potential effects to the natural and human environment from issuing permits to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties and from overall implementation of the GCP, including potential issuance of master or individual permits over the 10-year term of the proposed GCP. DATES: Comment submission: To ensure consideration in our analyses, comments must be submitted or postmarked by January 18, 2018. ADDRESSES: Document availability: The draft GCP, EA, and Implementing Agreement are available via the internet at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073. Information regarding these documents is available in alternative formats upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents will also be available for public inspection by appointment (call 801- 975-3330) during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Submitting comments: To send written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information requests or comments are in reference to the draft GCP. Please specify which of the documents your comment addresses. Internet: Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov to Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073. U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Romin, 801-975-3330, extension 142 (phone), or [email protected] (email). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech disabled, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the following documents for review and comment by the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments: Draft Range-wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (GCP); Draft Implementing Agreement for the GCP; and Draft Environment Assessment of the GCP (EA). We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA) for issuing permits to authorize take of Utah prairie dogs incidental to development activities within the range of the species in Utah. The draft GCP is designed to streamline take authorization for many types of development activities while conserving the species. Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties, in Utah, are applying for master incidental take permits under the GCP for development activities in those counties. Under their master permits, each county would provide take authorization through certificates of inclusion to project proponents who agree to adhere to the conditions of the GCP and the relevant county's master permit. Project proponents in other counties within the GCP's plan area would apply directly to the Service for their own incidental take permits. Other counties and municipalities may apply to the Service for a master permit for their area of jurisdiction. The Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) is listed as threatened under the ESA and is the sole species covered by the GCP. The draft GCP incorporates elements of the Utah Division of Resources' Utah Prairie Dog Management Plan for Non-Federal Lands, as well as other conservation measures to meet ESA requirements for issuing incidental take permits. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), we prepared a draft EA that analyzes the potential effects to the natural and human environment from issuing permits to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties and overall implementation of the GCP, including potential issuance of other master or individual permits over the 10-year term of the proposed GCP. For future decisions to issue permits under the GCP, we would use the analysis in this EA, as appropriate, in accordance with NEPA and relevant case law. As required by the ESA, we would make any future master or individual permit applications under the GCP available for public comment. In the draft EA, we also analyze the potential impacts to the natural and human environment from issuing permits in the future for projects outside Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties, and from implementing two alternatives to the proposed action. The draft EA also identifies alternatives that we considered but eliminated from further analysis. Background Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term ``take'' means to ``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term ``harm'' is defined in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as ``an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (50 CFR 17.3). The term ``harass'' is defined in the regulations as to carry out ``an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but [[Page 60212]] are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (50 CFR 17.3). Under section 10(a) of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish and wildlife species. ``Incidental take'' is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the incidental take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met: The taking will be incidental. The applicant will minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impact of such taking. The applicant will develop an HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The applicant will carry out any other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.32. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine whether the actions may significantly affect the human environment. Under NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.; 43 CFR 46), Federal agencies must also compare effects of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. In these analyses, the Federal agency will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, as well as possible mitigation for any significant effects, on biological resources, land uses, and other human and environmental resources that could occur with the implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. In accordance with NEPA, we prepared a draft EA to analyze the impacts to the natural and human environment that may occur if the Service were to issue master permits to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties and individual permits to project proponents outside these counties and from implementation of the GCP across the range of the Utah prairie dog. Proposed Action We propose to make the GCP available to non-Federal parties within the range of the Utah prairie dog for use when they are applying for incidental take permits for development activities. We also propose, at this time, to issue 10-year master permits for incidental take of the Utah prairie dog to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties, if applications from these counties demonstrate commitments to implement the requirements of the GCP to meet all the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issuance criteria. The master permits would authorize take of the Utah prairie dog incidental to activities associated with residential and commercial development and infrastructure construction, operations, and maintenance. Each county would convey take authorization under its permit to individual project proponents who apply for certificates of inclusion under the GCP. We also propose to issue individual permits to project proponents and master permits to other counties and municipalities as they submit applications over the 10-year term of the GCP. The GCP's plan area encompasses the entire current range of the Utah prairie dog, which includes all or parts of Iron, Garfield, Wayne, Beaver, Piute, Sevier, and Kane Counties. Individual permits we issue under the GCP would cover the area within which take is expected to occur from each project. The master permits for Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties would include any areas where take may occur from covered activities within those counties. The GCP identifies two zones where take would be authorized for development activities: (1) Major development areas--Non-Federal lands that are already built out or adjacent to built-out areas, and (2) Minor Development Areas--Non-Federal lands that are less likely than the major development areas to have large-scale human development growth over the term of the GCP. The GCP's measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the take include prairie dog translocations, habitat and plague management at translocation sites, and the protection of occupied Utah prairie dog habitats, all of which are consistent with our recovery objectives for this species. The overall conservation goals include: (1) Establishing and augmenting prairie dog colonies on Federal and other protected lands through translocations, and (2) Establishing conservation easements or acquiring lands from willing sellers to protect existing prairie dog colonies on private other non-Federal lands to support connectivity and metapopulation viability. Implementation of the conservation measures would rely on a combination of efforts by the Utah Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State funds and fees paid by developers obtaining a permit or certificate of inclusion would pay for implementation of the conservation measures. Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft Environmental Assessment In the draft EA, we evaluate the effects on the natural and human environment from two alternatives to the proposed action: (1) No action (i.e., no GCP), and (2) Issuing a master permit to each county that prepares an HCP with a permit application. The draft EA considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the two action alternatives, including measures intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such impacts. Public Comments We request information, views, and opinions from the public specifically on our proposed Federal action, including but not limited to any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the draft EA. We also solicit information regarding the adequacy of the GCP in meeting the requirements of 50 CFR parts 13 and 17. Written comments received become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Authority: We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations for incidental take permits (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR part 46). Dated: October 2, 2017. Michael G. Thabault, Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado. [FR Doc. 2017-27250 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2017 / Notices 60211
Dated: December 13, 2017. regarding these documents is available would apply directly to the Service for
Melanie J. Pantoja, in alternative formats upon request (see their own incidental take permits. Other
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). counties and municipalities may apply
Committee Policy. Documents will also be available for to the Service for a master permit for
[FR Doc. 2017–27225 Filed 12–18–17; 8:45 am] public inspection by appointment (call their area of jurisdiction.
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 801–975–3330) during normal business The Utah prairie dog (Cynomys
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife parvidens) is listed as threatened under
Service, Utah Ecological Services Field the ESA and is the sole species covered
Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West by the GCP. The draft GCP incorporates
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Valley City, UT 84119. elements of the Utah Division of
Fish and Wildlife Service Submitting comments: To send Resources’ Utah Prairie Dog
written comments, please use one of the Management Plan for Non-Federal
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2017–0073; following methods, and note that your Lands, as well as other conservation
FF06E23000–178–FXES11140600000] measures to meet ESA requirements for
information requests or comments are in
reference to the draft GCP. Please issuing incidental take permits.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife As required by the National
and Plants; Incidental Take Permit specify which of the documents your
comment addresses. Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
Application; Draft Range-Wide General 4321 et seq.; NEPA), we prepared a draft
Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie • Internet: Submit comments at
http://www.regulations.gov to Docket EA that analyzes the potential effects to
Dogs and Environmental Assessment the natural and human environment
Number FWS–R6–ES–2017–0073.
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, • U.S. Mail: Public Comments from issuing permits to Iron, Beaver,
Interior. Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R6– and Garfield Counties and overall
ACTION: Notice of availability; request ES–2017–0073; U.S. Fish and Wildlife implementation of the GCP, including
for comments. Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 potential issuance of other master or
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– individual permits over the 10-year term
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 3803. of the proposed GCP. For future
Wildlife Service, announce the decisions to issue permits under the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
availability of the following documents GCP, we would use the analysis in this
Laura Romin, 801–975–3330, extension
for review and comment by the public EA, as appropriate, in accordance with
142 (phone), or laura_romin@fws.gov
and Federal, Tribal, State, and local NEPA and relevant case law. As
(email). If you use a telecommunications
governments: required by the ESA, we would make
device for the deaf, hard-of-hearing, or any future master or individual permit
• Draft Range-wide General speech disabled, please call the Federal
Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs applications under the GCP available for
Relay Service at 800–877–8339. public comment. In the draft EA, we
(GCP);
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the also analyze the potential impacts to the
• Draft Implementing Agreement for
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), natural and human environment from
the GCP; and
announce the availability of the issuing permits in the future for projects
• Draft Environment Assessment of
following documents for review and outside Iron, Beaver, and Garfield
the GCP (EA).
comment by the public and Federal, Counties, and from implementing two
We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill
Tribal, State, and local governments: alternatives to the proposed action. The
the requirements of the Endangered
• Draft Range-wide General draft EA also identifies alternatives that
Species Act (ESA) for issuing permits to
Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs we considered but eliminated from
authorize take of Utah prairie dogs
(GCP); further analysis.
incidental to development activities • Draft Implementing Agreement for
within the range of the species in Utah. the GCP; and Background
The draft GCP is designed to streamline • Draft Environment Assessment of Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of
incidental take permit authorization for the GCP (EA). fish and wildlife species listed as
many types of development activities We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under
while conserving the species. As the requirements of the Endangered section 3 of the ESA, the term ‘‘take’’
required by the National Environmental Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; means to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
Policy Act (NEPA), we also prepared a ESA) for issuing permits to authorize shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
draft EA that analyzes the potential take of Utah prairie dogs incidental to collect, or attempt to engage in any such
effects to the natural and human development activities within the range conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term
environment from issuing permits to of the species in Utah. The draft GCP is ‘‘harm’’ is defined in title 50 of the Code
Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties and designed to streamline take of Federal Regulations as ‘‘an act which
from overall implementation of the GCP, authorization for many types of actually kills or injures wildlife. Such
including potential issuance of master development activities while conserving acts may include significant habitat
or individual permits over the 10-year the species. Iron, Beaver, and Garfield modification or degradation where it
term of the proposed GCP. Counties, in Utah, are applying for actually kills or injures wildlife by
DATES: Comment submission: To ensure master incidental take permits under the significantly impairing essential
consideration in our analyses, GCP for development activities in those behavioral patterns, including breeding,
comments must be submitted or counties. Under their master permits, feeding, or sheltering’’ (50 CFR 17.3).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
postmarked by January 18, 2018. each county would provide take The term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in the
ADDRESSES: Document availability: The authorization through certificates of regulations as to carry out ‘‘an
draft GCP, EA, and Implementing inclusion to project proponents who intentional or negligent act or omission
Agreement are available via the internet agree to adhere to the conditions of the which creates the likelihood of injury to
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal GCP and the relevant county’s master wildlife by annoying it to such an extent
(www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. permit. Project proponents in other as to significantly disrupt normal
FWS–R6–ES–2017–0073. Information counties within the GCP’s plan area behavioral patterns which include, but
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Dec 18, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60453/page/1.svg)
![60212 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2017 / Notices
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or We also propose, at this time, to issue U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and
sheltering’’ (50 CFR 17.3). 10-year master permits for incidental Wildlife Service. State funds and fees
Under section 10(a) of the ESA, the take of the Utah prairie dog to Iron, paid by developers obtaining a permit or
Service may issue permits to authorize Beaver, and Garfield Counties, if certificate of inclusion would pay for
incidental take of listed fish and applications from these counties implementation of the conservation
wildlife species. ‘‘Incidental take’’ is demonstrate commitments to implement measures.
defined by the ESA as take that is the requirements of the GCP to meet all
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft
carrying out an otherwise lawful issuance criteria. The master permits Environmental Assessment
activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA would authorize take of the Utah prairie In the draft EA, we evaluate the
contains provisions for issuing dog incidental to activities associated effects on the natural and human
incidental take permits to non-Federal with residential and commercial environment from two alternatives to
entities for the incidental take of development and infrastructure the proposed action: (1) No action (i.e.,
endangered and threatened species, construction, operations, and no GCP), and (2) Issuing a master permit
provided the following criteria are met: maintenance. Each county would to each county that prepares an HCP
• The taking will be incidental. convey take authorization under its with a permit application.
• The applicant will minimize and permit to individual project proponents
mitigate, to the maximum extent who apply for certificates of inclusion The draft EA considers the direct,
practicable, the impact of such taking. under the GCP. We also propose to issue indirect, and cumulative effects of the
• The applicant will develop an HCP individual permits to project two action alternatives, including
and ensure that adequate funding for the proponents and master permits to other measures intended to avoid, minimize,
plan will be provided. counties and municipalities as they and mitigate such impacts.
• The taking will not appreciably submit applications over the 10-year Public Comments
reduce the likelihood of the survival term of the GCP.
and recovery of the species in the wild. The GCP’s plan area encompasses the We request information, views, and
• The applicant will carry out any entire current range of the Utah prairie opinions from the public specifically on
other measures that the Secretary of the dog, which includes all or parts of Iron, our proposed Federal action, including
Interior may require as being necessary Garfield, Wayne, Beaver, Piute, Sevier, but not limited to any other aspects of
or appropriate for the purposes of the and Kane Counties. Individual permits the human environment not already
HCP. we issue under the GCP would cover the identified in the draft EA. We also
Regulations governing permits for area within which take is expected to solicit information regarding the
threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.32. occur from each project. The master adequacy of the GCP in meeting the
The National Environmental Policy permits for Iron, Beaver, and Garfield requirements of 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Counties would include any areas
requires that Federal agencies conduct Written comments received become
where take may occur from covered part of the public record associated with
an environmental analysis of their activities within those counties.
proposed actions to determine whether this action. Before including your
The GCP identifies two zones where
the actions may significantly affect the address, phone number, email address,
take would be authorized for
human environment. Under NEPA and or other personal identifying
development activities: (1) Major
its implementing regulations (40 CFR information in your comment, you
development areas—Non-Federal lands
1500 et seq.; 43 CFR 46), Federal should be aware that your entire
that are already built out or adjacent to
agencies must also compare effects of a comment—including your personal
built-out areas, and (2) Minor
reasonable range of alternatives to the Development Areas—Non-Federal lands identifying information—may be made
proposed action. In these analyses, the that are less likely than the major publicly available at any time. While
Federal agency will identify potentially development areas to have large-scale you may request in your comment that
significant direct, indirect, and human development growth over the we withhold your personal identifying
cumulative effects, as well as possible term of the GCP. information from public review, we
mitigation for any significant effects, on The GCP’s measures to minimize and cannot guarantee that we will be able to
biological resources, land uses, and mitigate the impacts of the take include do so. All submissions from
other human and environmental prairie dog translocations, habitat and organizations or businesses and from
resources that could occur with the plague management at translocation individuals identifying themselves as
implementation of the proposed action sites, and the protection of occupied representatives or officials of
and alternatives. In accordance with Utah prairie dog habitats, all of which organizations or businesses will be
NEPA, we prepared a draft EA to are consistent with our recovery made available for public disclosure in
analyze the impacts to the natural and objectives for this species. The overall their entirety.
human environment that may occur if conservation goals include: (1) Authority: We provide this notice under
the Service were to issue master permits Establishing and augmenting prairie dog section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties colonies on Federal and other protected seq.) and its implementing regulations for
and individual permits to project lands through translocations, and (2) incidental take permits (50 CFR 17.22) and
Establishing conservation easements or NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its
proponents outside these counties and implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43
from implementation of the GCP across acquiring lands from willing sellers to
CFR part 46).
protect existing prairie dog colonies on
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
the range of the Utah prairie dog.
private other non-Federal lands to Dated: October 2, 2017.
Proposed Action support connectivity and Michael G. Thabault,
We propose to make the GCP metapopulation viability. Assistant Regional Director–Ecological
available to non-Federal parties within Implementation of the conservation Services, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish
the range of the Utah prairie dog for use measures would rely on a combination and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado.
when they are applying for incidental of efforts by the Utah Division of [FR Doc. 2017–27250 Filed 12–18–17; 8:45 am]
take permits for development activities. Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Dec 18, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60453/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-19 01:31:07
Document Modified: 2017-12-19 01:31:07
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability; request for comments. | |
| Dates | Comment submission: To ensure consideration in our analyses, comments must be submitted or postmarked by January 18, 2018. | |
| Contact | Laura Romin, 801-975-3330, extension 142 (phone), or [email protected] (email). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech disabled, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 60211 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR