70700 Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 220/Monday, November .
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES70700Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and RegulationsX. Statutory and Executive OrderReviewsThis action establishes a toleranceunder FFDCA section 408(d) inresponse to a petition submitted to theAgency. The Office of Management andBudget (OMB) has exempted these typesof actions from review under ExecutiveOrder 12866, entitled ‘‘RegulatoryPlanning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993). Because this actionhas been exempted from review underExecutive Order 12866, this action isnot subject to Executive Order 13211,entitled ‘‘Actions ConcerningRegulations That Significantly AffectEnergy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or ExecutiveOrder 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,April 23, 1997). This action does notcontain any information collectionssubject to OMB approval under thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it requireany special considerations underExecutive Order 12898, entitled‘‘Federal Actions to AddressEnvironmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-IncomePopulations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,1994).Since tolerances and exemptions thatare established on the basis of a petitionunder FFDCA section 408(d), such asthe tolerance in this final rule, do notrequire the issuance of a proposed rule,the requirements of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.), do not apply.This action directly regulates growers,food processors, food handlers, and foodretailers, not States or tribes, nor doesthis action alter the relationships ordistribution of power andresponsibilities established by Congressin the preemption provisions of FFDCAsection 408(n)(4). As such, the Agencyhas determined that this action will nothave a substantial direct effect on Statesor tribal governments, on therelationship between the nationalgovernment and the States or tribalgovernments, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government or betweenthe Federal Government and Indiantribes. Thus, the Agency has determinedthat Executive Order 13132, entitled‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999) and Executive Order 13175,entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR67249, November 9, 2000) do not applyto this action. In addition, this actiondoes not impose any enforceable duty orcontain any unfunded mandate asVerDate Sep 11 201416:20 Nov 13, 2015Jkt 238001described under Title II of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.1501 et seq.).This action does not involve anytechnical standards that would requireAgency consideration of voluntaryconsensus standards pursuant to section12(d) of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).XI. Congressional Review ActPursuant to the Congressional ReviewAct (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA willsubmit a report containing this rule andother required information to the U.S.Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the ComptrollerGeneral of the United States prior topublication of the rule in the FederalRegister. This action is not a ‘‘majorrule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Agricultural commodities, Pesticidesand pests, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.Dated: November 5, 2015.G. Jeffrey Herndon,Director, Registration Division, Office ofPesticide Programs.Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I isamended as follows:PART 180—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 180continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.2. In § 180.960, add alphabetically thepolymer in the table to read as follows: § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from therequirement of a tolerance.*****PolymerCAS No.***Tamarind seed gum, 2hydroxypropyl ether polymer, minimum number average molecular weight (inamu), 10,000 .*****68551–04–2**[FR Doc. 2015–29169 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–PPO 00000Frm 00032Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021;FXES11130900000; 4500030113]RIN 1018–AY83Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Removal of the DelmarvaPeninsula Fox Squirrel From the List ofEndangered and Threatened WildlifeFish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.AGENCY:The best available scientificand commercial data indicate that theDelmarva Peninsula fox squirrel(Sciurus niger cinereus) has recovered.Therefore, under the authority of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Service), remove theDelmarva Peninsula fox squirrel(commonly called the Delmarva foxsquirrel) from the Federal List ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlife(List). This determination is based on athorough review of all availableinformation, which indicates that thesubspecies is now sufficiently abundantand well distributed to withstandforeseeable threats and no longer meetsthe definition of an endangered orthreatened species under the Act.This rule removes the Delmarva foxsquirrel from the List throughout itsrange, including the experimentalpopulation designated for AssawomanWildlife Management Area in Delaware.It also announces the availability of apost-delisting monitoring plan for thesubspecies.DATES: This rule is effective December16, 2015.ADDRESSES: This final rule and the postdelisting monitoring plan are availableon the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021. Commentsand materials received, as well assupporting documentation used in rulepreparation, will be available for publicinspection, by appointment, duringnormal business hours at: U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay FieldOffice, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive,Annapolis, MD 21401; and on theChesapeake Bay Field Office Web siteat: http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Field Office Supervisor, GenevieveLaRouche, by telephone at 410–573–4573; or Cherry Keller, WildlifeBiologist, at 410–573–4532, or by emailSUMMARY:E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM16NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulationsat cherry keller@fws.gov. Writtenquestions or requests for additionalinformation may also be directed to:Delmarva fox squirrel QUESTIONS, atthe street address listed underADDRESSES. Individuals who arehearing-impaired or speech-impairedmay call the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY assistance.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:BackgroundPrevious Federal ActionOn September 23, 2014, the Servicepublished a proposed rule (79 FR56686) to remove the DelmarvaPeninsula fox squirrel, commonly calledand hereafter referred to as theDelmarva fox squirrel (DFS), from theList of Endangered and ThreatenedWildlife (List). In the proposed rule, wesolicited information and commentsfrom the public and scientific expertsfor 60 days, ending November 24, 2014.Later in this document, we discusscomments we received. For moreinformation on previous Federal actionsconcerning the Delmarva fox squirrel,refer to the proposed rule available athttp://www.regulations.gov underDocket No. FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021.Species InformationThe Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurusniger cinereus), a subspecies of theeastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)found only on the Delmarva Peninsula,is located between the Chesapeake Bayand the Atlantic Ocean in portions ofMaryland, Delaware, and Virginia. TheDFS is a large, silver-gray tree squirrelwith white underparts and a wide tail.It inhabits mature forests of mixedhardwoods and pines within theagricultural landscapes of the DelmarvaPeninsula and is not typically found insuburban settings. The DFS is alsoassociated with forests that have arelatively open understory (Dueser et al.1988, entire; Dueser 2000, entire) orwhere understory shrubs are clumped,leaving other open spaces (Morris 2006,p. 37). While these squirrels needmature forest for both feeding anddenning, they can travel and forage inother areas, including clearcuts, youngforests, and agricultural fields.As a member of the Order Rodentia,the DFS has a life history with goodpotential for population increase. Forexample, females breed at 1 year of age,litter sizes range from two to four young,some females have potential for twolitters in 1 year, and lifespans can reach6 to 7 years in the wild. Den sites arefrequently found in tree cavities, butleaf nests may also be used. Homeranges of the DFS vary considerably butare typically 12 to 16 hectares (ha) (30to 40 acres (ac)), and individual homeranges overlap (Flyger and Smith 1980;entire, Paglione 1996; entire, PednaultWillett 2002, p. 109). Densities rangefrom 0.36 to 1.29 DFS per ha (0.15 to 0.5DFS per ac), averaging 0.82 DFS per ha(0.33 DFS per ac) (Paglione 1996, p. 28;Pednault-Willett 2002, pp. 85–104).Historically, this subspecies had apatchy distribution throughout most ofthe Delmarva Peninsula and intosouthern Pennsylvania, but by the timeof its listing in 1967 (32 FR 4001; March7070111, 1967), remnant populationsoccurred in only four Maryland counties(Taylor 1976, entire); this rangecontraction was most likely caused byland use changes and hunting. Whenthe subspecies was listed, itsdistribution had been reduced to only10 percent of the Delmarva Peninsula.After listing, the hunting season for thissubspecies was closed, and recoveryefforts focused on expanding thesquirrel’s distribution throughtranslocations. In addition, newpopulations have been discovered sincethe time of listing (particularly sincemore intensive search efforts wereinitiated), and there are now many moreareas of forest known to be occupied bythe DFS.The squirrel’s current occupied rangeis defined as the area within 4.8kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)) ofcredible DFS sightings. As of the 2012status review for the DFS, this covered28 percent of the Delmarva Peninsula,including 10 of the 14 peninsularcounties (8 counties in Maryland and 1each in Delaware and Virginia) and54,543 ha (134,778 ac) of occupiedforest (USFWS 2012, based on 2010data). Since that time, new sightingshave continued to occur and an updatedoverview of its range as of 2013 isprovided below in Table 1. Anadditional population discovered inWorcester County, Maryland, is the firstpopulation found there that was not aresult of a translocation. Figure 1 showsrange changes between the time of the1993 recovery plan and the presentdecade.TABLE 1—KNOWN OCCUPIED RANGE OF THE DFS, 1970 TO 2013YearOccupied rangeNumber of counties in the range (withouttranslocations).Number of counties in the range (withtranslocations).Total acres of occupied forest rangewide .Percent of historical range occupied .Source . 19701990200520103 .3 .6 .6 .7.4 .10 .10 .10 .10.N/A .10 .Taylor and Flyger1974.103,311 .USFWS 1993, recovery plan.128,434 .27 .USFWS 2007, 5yr review.134,778 .28 .USFWS 2012, 5yr review.137,363.28.USFWS 2013data.asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESBILLING CODE 4333–15–PVerDate Sep 11 201416:20 Nov 13, 2015Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00033Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM16NOR12013
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulationsasabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESBILLING CODE 4333–15–CSummary of Changes From theProposed RuleWe have not made any substantivechanges in this final rule based on thecomments that we received during thepublic comment period on theSeptember 23, 2014, proposed rule (79FR 56686), but we have added orcorrected text to clarify the informationthat was presented. This informationand other clarifications have beenVerDate Sep 11 201416:20 Nov 13, 2015Jkt 238001incorporated into this final rule asdiscussed below in Summary ofComments and Recommendations.Summary of Comments andRecommendationsIn the proposed rule published onSeptember 23, 2014 (79 FR 56686), werequested that all interested partiessubmit written comments on theproposal by November 24, 2014. Wealso solicited peer review of thePO 00000Frm 00034Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700scientific basis for the proposal (see PeerReview Comments, below), andcontacted appropriate Federal and Stateagencies, scientific experts andorganizations, and other interestedparties and invited them to comment onthe proposal. Newspaper noticesinviting general public comment werepublished in the Baltimore Sun, placedon Service Web sites, and advertised byother online media outlets (e.g., .SGM16NOR1ER16NO15.211 /GPH 70702
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and delmarva-peninsula-fox-squirrel). Wedid not receive any requests for a publichearing.During the public comment period forthe proposed rule, we received a total of129 comment letters. Of these, 74provided substantive comments that weaddress below, including one letter fromthe State of Maryland and commentsfrom two peer reviewers. Both peerreviewers asked for additional detail onthe life history of this subspecies, whichwe have provided in the supplementaldocuments that can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021. Allsubstantive information providedduring the review period either has beenincorporated directly into this finaldetermination or into the supplementaldocuments, or is addressed below.asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESComments From States(1) Comment: The State of Maryland’sDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR)was supportive of the proposed rule andconcurred with our findings. The DNRadded that it would continue to provideprotection to the DFS under theauthority of Maryland’s Nongame andEndangered Species Conservation Act,although likely not at the endangeredlevel. The DNR also stated that the postdelisting monitoring plan proposed bythe Service was adequate to documentexpansion or contraction of the range ofthe DFS and that the agency wouldparticipate in the monitoring effort.Our Response: We are in agreementwith the DNR and appreciate itscommitment to continued conservation.Public Comments(2) Comment: Several commentersexpressed concern that the DFS wouldbe hunted after delisting, and thatpopulations would then decline andmight require relisting.Our Response: As explained in theproposed rule and supplementarydocuments (see Post-delistingMonitoring Plan, appendices D throughF), after delisting, the State of Marylandintends to keep the DFS on the State listof endangered and threatened species asa Species of Conservation Concern; thisstatus does not allow a hunting season.This intention is reinforced by the Stateof Maryland’s comment letter reiteratingthat the subspecies will remain Statelisted as described above.The State of Delaware also intends tokeep this subspecies on its State list ofendangered and threatened species, andno hunting of the DFS will be allowedafter delisting. The State has written amanagement plan for the DFS (DNREC2014) that calls for adding twoVerDate Sep 11 201416:20 Nov 13, 2015Jkt 238001additional DFS populations in the State,likely through translocations.In the State of Virginia, all DFSs arecurrently on the Chincoteague NationalWildlife Refuge, where they will not behunted. The State has evaluatedlocations for potential translocations ofDFSs in the future, but any futuretranslocated populations are notexpected to be subject to hunting.Enhancement of DFS populations inVirginia would be primarily aimed atrestoring the native fauna of Virginia.(3) Comment: Several commentersstated that the occupancy of 28 percentof the historical range was insufficientto warrant delisting.Our Response: The Act is legislationintended to prevent extinction of nativespecies and does not describe recoveryin terms of the proportion of a historicalrange that is occupied by a species. Wedo take into account in our listing anddelisting determinations the effects thatloss of historical range may have on thecurrent and future viability of a species.As explained in our significant portionof the range (SPR) final policy (79 FR37578; July 1, 2014), we have concludedthat this consideration is sufficient toaccount for the effects of loss ofhistorical range when evaluating thecurrent status of a species. The purposesof the Act, stated in section 2, are toprovide a means to conserve theecosystems upon which endangeredspecies and threatened species dependand to provide a program for theconservation of endangered species andthreatened species. The Act itself doesnot contain the phrase ‘‘historicalrange,’’ nor does it ever allude torestoration throughout the entirehistorical range as a conservationpurpose.Some concerns about the currentrange of the DFS likely stem from afrequently quoted reason for listing,‘‘the species was listed because itdeclined to 10 percent of its historicalrange’’ (USFWS 1993, p. 1). However,the substantial population decline asevidenced by that range decline is theactual reason for the listing. In 1944, theDFS was found in seven counties(Dozier and Hall 1944), but by 1967, itwas known to occur in only fourcounties; thus, the decline would havebeen apparent and reasonablyconcerning to many biologists at thetime of listing.(4) Comment: Several commentersstated that the total number of animalsin the rangewide population did notappear to be large enough to warrantdelisting and expressed a concern thatthe population would decline againafter delisting.PO 00000Frm 00035Fmt 4700Sfmt 470070703Our Response: As described in theproposed rule, the best estimate of therangewide number of the DFS at thetime of the 2012 status review was22,368 (USFWS 2012, p. 20), which wecan approximate as 20,000. However,the critical question with regard to thelisting status of the subspecies is not aspecified number of individuals; rather,it is the level of extinction risk,indicating whether the subspecies meetsthe definition of endangered orthreatened. To address this question, weconducted a population viabilityanalysis (PVA) for the DFS (Hilderbrandet al. 2007, entire), which enabled us toevaluate how the foreseeable threatsmay affect the probability of extinctionof DFS subpopulations (USFWS 2012,pp. 18–21, 23–44).The Hilderbrand et al. (2007) PVAmodel indicates that a population of 130animals would have a 95 percent chanceof persisting for 100 years. Thisthreshold, also called a minimum viablepopulation (MVP), provides a usefulbenchmark of extinction risk. It shouldnot be mistaken for a recovery goal butis, rather, a population size with anassociated extinction risk based on thelife history of the DFS before assessingadditional threats. This PVA includesvariations in adult and juvenilesurvival, the number of young producedper year, and variability inenvironmental effects.Using this model, we estimate that theknown occupied forest within the rangeof the DFS contains a total populationthat is 171 times the MVP and that, evenunder the worst-case scenarios forthreats, including inundation of areasup to 0.6 meters (m) (2 feet (ft)) abovesea level due to sea level rise, we wouldstill have a total population that is 145times the MVP. Further, our analysisindicates that the rangewide populationwould comprise at least 15subpopulations broadly distributedacross the Delmarva Peninsula. Afterconsidering the conservationimperatives of habitat availability,habitat connectivity, populationresiliency and redundancy, and geneticand/or ecological representation, weconcluded that the risk
credible DFS sightings. As of the 2012 status review for the DFS, this covered 28 percent of the Delmarva Peninsula, including 10 of the 14 peninsular counties (8 counties in Maryland and 1 each in Delaware and Virginia) and 54,543 ha (134,778 ac) of occupied forest (USFWS 2012, based on 2010 data). Since that time, new sightings
Menschen Pagina 20 Schritte international Neu Pagina 22 Motive Pagina 24 Akademie Deutsch Pagina 25 Starten wir! Pagina 26 Themen aktuell Pagina 28 em neu Pagina 29 Sicher! Pagina 30 Vol A1 1 Vol A1 Vol 1 Vol 1 2 Vol unico Vol 1 Volume 1 Volume 1 Vol 1 Vol 1 1 Vol A1 2 Vol 2 Vol 1 2 Vol A2 1 Vol A2 Vol 3 Vol
1 PLACE DE L'HOTEL DE VILLE, 70700, GY, Tél : 03 84 32 85 28 Maître d'ouvrage : COMMUNAUTE DE COMMUNES DES MONTS DE GY 3 Rue des Saules , 70700, GY Tél :03 84 32 97 61-----Cahier des clauses techniques particulières (C.C.T.P) Lot n : 01- TERRASSEMENT VRD
Akenson, Donald Harman Vol 8: 10 Alan, Radous, at Agincourt Vol 12: 1 Albert, King Vol 7: 45, 47 Albert, Prince Vol 12: 17; Vol 14: 1 Alden, John Vol 5: 34; Vol 9: 18 Alexander III Vol 13: 24 Aleyn, John, at Agincourt Vol 12: 1 Allen, Pat Vol 10: 44 Alling Vol 4: 26 Amore, Shirley Vol 12: 3 Anderson, Robert Vol 10: 46 Anderson, Virginia DeJohn .
II Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 232/Monday, December 3, 2018 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097-6326) is published daily, Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15)
4 A Brief History Commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the Publication of the First Issue of the Federal Register March 14, 1936 the printing processes of the Federal Register always have played a central role in the policies and procedures of the Federal Register system. At times those needs and capabilities have been the driving force for .
Ali Akbar Salehi Iran 01/30/20 Active Vol. 85, No. 44, March 5, 2020 Federal Register Executive Order 13382 Iran Space Agency Iran 09/03/2019 Active Vol. 84, No. 231, December 2, 2019, Federal Register Executive Order 13382 Iran Space Research Center Iran 09/03/2019 Active Vol. 84, No.
6742 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 13/Friday, January 22, 2021/Rules and Regulations 1 12 U.S.C. 1831f (also referred to herein as ''Section 29''). 2 See Public Law 101-73, August 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 183. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Parts 303 and 337 RIN 3064-AE94; 3064-AF02 Unsafe and Unsound Banking
The API Standard 2000 5th Edition takes into account Tank Volume, Liquid Flow, and Temperature Change. It was written as a basis for the pressure control of hydrocarbons, and considered industrial tanks as well. It is this 5th Edition that is probably in widest use today. In 2009, this was updated to the API Standard 2000 6th Edition.
