Proposed Supplementary Rule To Establish Application Fees for Commercial, Competitive, and Organized Group Activity and Event Special Recreation Permits, 51834-51837 [E7-17827]

Download as PDF 51834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I–590, Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I–590, Registration for Classification as Refugee; OMB Control Number 1615– 0068. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES ACTION: The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007, at 72 FR 36475. The notice allowed for a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received on this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 11, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd floor, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202–395– 6974 or via e-mail at kastrich@omb.eop.gov. When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615–0068 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Sep 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved information collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Registration for Classification as Refugee. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I–590. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection provides a uniform method for applicants to apply for refugee status and contains the information needed in order to adjudicate such applications. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 140,000 responses at 35 minutes (.583) per response. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 81,620 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the USCIS Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ component/main. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202–272–8377. Dated: September 6, 2007. Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7–17826 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–10–P PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO 931 1220 PA] Proposed Supplementary Rule To Establish Application Fees for Commercial, Competitive, and Organized Group Activity and Event Special Recreation Permits Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Proposed Supplementary rule to establish application fees for Special Recreation Permits (SRP) for commercial use, competitive use, and organized group activies and events. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to establish a supplementary rule addressing Special Recreation Permit (SRP) fees. The proposal would establish standard statewide application fees for issuance of a new SRP or the transfer or renewal of an SRP for commercial use, competitive use, or organized group activities and events. These fees would help offset the cost of processing these SRPs, and also allow field offices to keep more revenues for on-the-ground work, including law enforcement, hiring seasonal employees, and site improvements. Currently, there are no statewide application fees. These new fees will not affect cost recovery charges that begin with the first hour when the 50-hour cost recovery threshold is anticipated to be exceeded. The application fees proposed to go into effect on October 1, 2007, are: • New Special Recreation Permits— $100 • Renewals (re-issuance of expiring/ expired permits)—$50 • Transfers—$100 • Annual operating authorizations— No fee charged These fees do not apply to SRPs issued to individuals and authorizing use of designated Special Areas. DATES: You should submit your written comments on the proposed supplementary rule by November 13, 2007. Comments that are received after the close of the comment period or comments delivered to an address other than those listed under ADDRESSES need not be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the final supplementary rule. ADDRESSES: (1) You may mail comments on the proposed supplementary rules to Jack Placchi, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215; E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices (2) You may hand deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office, at the same address. (3) You may email your comment to jack_placchi@blm.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Placchi, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 239– 3832. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Procedures for Submitting Comments II. Background III. Procedural Matters IV. Proposed Supplementary Rule for the BLM Colorado SRP Application Fee I. Procedures for Submitting Comments Comments on the proposed supplementary rule should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposals, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific provision of the proposed supplementary rule that is being addressed. BLM will have all comments, including names and addresses, available for public review at the Colorado State Office in Lakewood during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays). Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment— including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES II . Background In general, all commercial use, competitive use, organized group activities, special events, and special area use on BLM public lands require a Special Recreation Permit (SRP). BLM Colorado manages over 800 SRPs annually for commercial use, competitive use, and organized group activities and events. BLM Colorado is proposing to implement new application fees for the issuance of new SRPs and for the transfer and renewal of existing SRPs. The new administrative fees will be $100 for new permits, $50 for renewal, and $100 for transfers. The average cost to existing permit holders will be $10 per year, as most permits are renewed every five years. This fee does not apply VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Sep 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 to SRPs issued to individuals for special area use. A statewide application fee will make consistent the cost of applying for and processing SRPs for commercial use, competitive use, or organized group activities and events. Currently Colorado offices have been requiring a $90 minimum use fee for new permit applications. If a permit is not issued, some offices return the funds while others keep the fees to offset the costs of evaluation. The new fees funds will augment recreation opportunities for the public. Both the public and private outfitters will benefit from the fee through BLM’s increased law enforcement capabilities, providing more funds for signing and interpretive education and for a greater BLM staff field presence to control illegal operations on BLM-managed public lands. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2932.31(d)(1)–(2) and BLM Manual H–2930–1, Recreation Permit Administration at Ch. 1, III. G. 2f(1),the State Director has the authority to set and adjust fees for SRPs, including application fees. III. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The proposed supplementary rule establishing SRP application fees is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This proposed supplementary rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. The proposed supplementary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The proposed rule does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of their recipients; nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. It imposes minimal fees for the administration and processing of SRP applications. Fees have not been consistently charged for SRP applications in the past. While this proposal represents a change from the past administration policies, it will not be a major change in the context of the Executive Order. The fees have been discussed with the Colorado Outfitters Association. Additional limited consultation has also occurred with current SRP holders. Information concerning the proposed new fees will PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51835 be available on the BLM Web site, through press releases, and distributed to current SRP holders. Clarity of the Supplementary Rules Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites comments on how to make this proposed supplementary rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed supplementary rules clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed supplementary rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed supplementary rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the supplementary rule be easier to understand if it was divided into more (but shorter) sections? and (5) Is the discussion of the proposed supplementary rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful to your understanding of the proposed supplementary rule? If not, how could this material be more helpful in making the proposed supplementary rule easier to understand? Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the supplementary rule to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. National Environmental Policy Act BLM has found that the proposed supplementary rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2, Appendix 1. This provision of the DM excludes from review under NEPA policies, directives, and regulations that are of an administrative, financial, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case by case. In addition, the proposed rule does not meet any of the 12 criteria for extraordinary circumstances listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term ‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 51836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rule and fees will have a minimal effect on outfitter guide business entities. The average cost to existing permit holders will be $10 per year, as most permits are renewed every five years. To determine an appropriate fee structure, the BLM interviewed BLM SRP managers across Colorado. Those interviewed included recreation permit and license managers of local and regional recreational programs, including Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area, Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs, and Colorado State Parks River Outfitter Licensing Program. The BLM also interviewed the Executive Director of the Colorado Outfitters Association. The proposed fees are a fraction of the cost of comparable application and license fees across the State. BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed supplementary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This proposed supplementary rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies or regions, or in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. It will merely impose reasonable fees for SRP applications to offset costs for processing permits. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The proposed supplementary rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year; nor does the proposed supplementary rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Sep 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 have a significant or unique effect on small governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at (2 U.S.C. 1532). The proposed rule will impose reasonable fees for SRP applications to offset costs for processing permits. In determining the proposed SRP application fees, the BLM has coordinated with local, state, and Federal agencies. Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) The proposed supplementary rule does not have takings implications and is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The proposed supplementary rule would have minimal effect on private lands or property. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require preparation of a takings assessment under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The proposed supplementary rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed supplementary rule would have minimal effect on state or local government. As for the SRP application fee to be imposed, BLM has coordinated with local, state, and Federal agencies, consulted with managers of local and regional recreational programs, including Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area, Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs, and Colorado State Parks River Outfitter Licensing Program, before proposing the new fees for SRPs. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, we have found that the proposed supplementary rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that the proposed supplementary rule for the BLM Colorado SRP application fee does not include policies that have tribal implications. Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation In accordance with E.O. 13352, BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not impede cooperative conservation; would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and would enhance the ability of the BLM to see that Colorado BLM programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Author The principal author of the proposed supplementary rule is Jack Placchi, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management. IV. Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Application Fees—BLM Colorado Proposed Supplementary Rule The Colorado State Office, BLM, hereby proposes a supplementary rule to establish application fees for special recreation permits for commercial uses, competitive uses, or organized group activities and events use of BLM lands in Colorado. This supplementary rule is proposed to go into effect on October 1, 2007. The fees schedule will be posted in all Colorado Field and State Offices and on the Internet at http:// www.co.blm.gov. The fees for special recreation permit applications are: • New Special Recreation Permits— $100. • Renewals (re-issuance of expiring/ expired permits)—$50. • Transfers—$100. • Annual operating authorizations— No fee charged. These fees do not apply to SRPs issued to individuals and authorizing use of designated Special Areas. E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices Authority On December 11, 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation published a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS in the Federal Register. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on September 8, 2000. The purpose of the document was to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed modifications to the main channel for the Rio Grande and Low Flow Conveyance Channel system. The proposed modifications were to be located downstream from San Marcial, New Mexico. The proposed channel system realignment would have allowed for efficient conveyance of water to Elephant Butte Reservoir, effective valley drainage, and effective sediment management. The proposed changes would have also promoted the protection and restoration of the riparian and riverine ecosystem in the project area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management, proposes this supplementary rule under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1740, 43 CFR 2932.31(d)(1)–(2), 8365.1–6, and BLM Manual H–2930–1. Enforcement authority for this supplementary rule on the public lands within Colorado is found in FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1733, and in 43 CFR 8360.0–7. Penalties Under section 303(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), and 43 CFR 8360.0–7, if you violate this supplementary rule on public lands within the boundaries established in the rule, you may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both. Dated: May 8, 2007. Sally Wisely, Colorado State Director. [FR Doc. E7–17827 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P Dated: August 16, 2007. Dave Sabo, Acting Regional Director—UC Region, Bureau of Reclamation. [FR Doc. E7–17838 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Rio Grande and Low Flow Conveyance Channel Between San Acacia Diversion Dam, New Mexico, and the Narrows of Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. Notice of cancellation. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES ACTION: SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation is canceling plans to prepare a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the environmental impacts of proposed modifications to the main channel of the Rio Grande and Low Flow Conveyance Channel system. The reason for canceling is that seven years have elapsed since publication of the draft EIS and the recently issued final EIS and Record of Decision for the Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Operations Review considers the impacts of continuing the operation of the Low Flow Conveyance Channel as a passive drain with no diversion from the Rio Grande. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Robertson, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 55 Broadway NE., Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102; e-mail: lrobertson@uc.usbr.gov; telephone (505) 462–3594. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Sep 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Form Submitted for OMB Review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Commission has submitted a request for approval of questionnaires to the Office of Management and Budget for review. AGENCY: Purpose of Information Collection: The forms are for use by the Commission in connection with investigation No. 332–487, Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries, instituted under the authority of section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). This investigation was requested by the Senate Committee on Finance. The Commission expects to deliver the results of its investigation to the Senate Committee on Finance on June 6, 2008. Summary of Proposal: (1) Number of forms submitted: Two. (2) Title of form: Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries. (3) Type of request: New. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51837 (4) Frequency of use: Producer and importer questionnaires, single data gathering, scheduled for 2007. (5) Description of respondents: U.S. firms which produce and/or import wood flooring and hardwood plywood. (6) Estimated number of respondents: 422 (producer and importer questionnaires-total). (7) Estimated total number of hours to complete the forms: 16,880. (8) Information obtained from the form that qualifies as confidential business information will be so treated by the Commission and not disclosed in a manner that would reveal the individual operations of a firm. Additional Information or Comment: Copies of the forms and supporting documents may be obtained from Cynthia B. Foreso (USITC, telephone no. (202) 205–3348) or Gail Burns (USITC, telephone no. (202) 205–2501). Comments about the proposals should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 10102 (Docket Library), Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Docket Librarian. All comments should be specific, indicating which part of the questionnaire is objectionable, describing the concern in detail, and including specific suggested revisions or language changes. Copies of any comments should be provided to Robert Rogowsky, Director, Office of Operations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, who is the Commission’s designated Senior Official under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Secretary at 202– 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting our TTD terminal (telephone no. 202– 205–1810). General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). Issued: September 4, 2007. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7–17781 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51834-51837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17827]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO 931 1220 PA]


Proposed Supplementary Rule To Establish Application Fees for 
Commercial, Competitive, and Organized Group Activity and Event Special 
Recreation Permits

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Supplementary rule to establish application fees for 
Special Recreation Permits (SRP) for commercial use, competitive use, 
and organized group activies and events.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) proposes to establish a supplementary rule addressing Special 
Recreation Permit (SRP) fees. The proposal would establish standard 
statewide application fees for issuance of a new SRP or the transfer or 
renewal of an SRP for commercial use, competitive use, or organized 
group activities and events. These fees would help offset the cost of 
processing these SRPs, and also allow field offices to keep more 
revenues for on-the-ground work, including law enforcement, hiring 
seasonal employees, and site improvements. Currently, there are no 
statewide application fees. These new fees will not affect cost 
recovery charges that begin with the first hour when the 50-hour cost 
recovery threshold is anticipated to be exceeded. The application fees 
proposed to go into effect on October 1, 2007, are:
     New Special Recreation Permits--$100
     Renewals (re-issuance of expiring/expired permits)--$50
     Transfers--$100
     Annual operating authorizations--No fee charged
    These fees do not apply to SRPs issued to individuals and 
authorizing use of designated Special Areas.

DATES: You should submit your written comments on the proposed 
supplementary rule by November 13, 2007. Comments that are received 
after the close of the comment period or comments delivered to an 
address other than those listed under ADDRESSES need not be considered 
or included in the Administrative Record for the final supplementary 
rule.

ADDRESSES: 
    (1) You may mail comments on the proposed supplementary rules to 
Jack Placchi, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 
Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215;

[[Page 51835]]

    (2) You may hand deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management 
Colorado State Office, at the same address.
    (3) You may email your comment to jack_placchi@blm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Placchi, Outdoor Recreation 
Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 
Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 239-3832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Procedures for Submitting Comments
II. Background
III. Procedural Matters
IV. Proposed Supplementary Rule for the BLM Colorado SRP Application 
Fee

I. Procedures for Submitting Comments

    Comments on the proposed supplementary rule should be specific, 
should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposals, and should 
explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments 
should reference the specific provision of the proposed supplementary 
rule that is being addressed.
    BLM will have all comments, including names and addresses, 
available for public review at the Colorado State Office in Lakewood 
during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays). Before including your address, telephone 
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 
your comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public 
review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that 
we will be able to do so.

II . Background

    In general, all commercial use, competitive use, organized group 
activities, special events, and special area use on BLM public lands 
require a Special Recreation Permit (SRP). BLM Colorado manages over 
800 SRPs annually for commercial use, competitive use, and organized 
group activities and events.
    BLM Colorado is proposing to implement new application fees for the 
issuance of new SRPs and for the transfer and renewal of existing SRPs. 
The new administrative fees will be $100 for new permits, $50 for 
renewal, and $100 for transfers. The average cost to existing permit 
holders will be $10 per year, as most permits are renewed every five 
years. This fee does not apply to SRPs issued to individuals for 
special area use.
    A statewide application fee will make consistent the cost of 
applying for and processing SRPs for commercial use, competitive use, 
or organized group activities and events. Currently Colorado offices 
have been requiring a $90 minimum use fee for new permit applications. 
If a permit is not issued, some offices return the funds while others 
keep the fees to offset the costs of evaluation.
    The new fees funds will augment recreation opportunities for the 
public. Both the public and private outfitters will benefit from the 
fee through BLM's increased law enforcement capabilities, providing 
more funds for signing and interpretive education and for a greater BLM 
staff field presence to control illegal operations on BLM-managed 
public lands.
    Pursuant to 43 CFR 2932.31(d)(1)-(2) and BLM Manual H-2930-1, 
Recreation Permit Administration at Ch. 1, III. G. 2f(1),the State 
Director has the authority to set and adjust fees for SRPs, including 
application fees.

III. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The proposed supplementary rule establishing SRP application fees 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
This proposed supplementary rule will not have an annual effect of $100 
million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The proposed supplementary rule will not 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency. The proposed rule does not 
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients; nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. It imposes 
minimal fees for the administration and processing of SRP applications.
    Fees have not been consistently charged for SRP applications in the 
past. While this proposal represents a change from the past 
administration policies, it will not be a major change in the context 
of the Executive Order. The fees have been discussed with the Colorado 
Outfitters Association. Additional limited consultation has also 
occurred with current SRP holders. Information concerning the proposed 
new fees will be available on the BLM Web site, through press releases, 
and distributed to current SRP holders.

Clarity of the Supplementary Rules

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites comments on how 
to make this proposed supplementary rule easier to understand, 
including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the 
requirements in the proposed supplementary rules clearly stated? (2) 
Does the proposed supplementary rule contain technical language or 
jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the 
proposed supplementary rule (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the 
supplementary rule be easier to understand if it was divided into more 
(but shorter) sections? and (5) Is the discussion of the proposed 
supplementary rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
preamble helpful to your understanding of the proposed supplementary 
rule? If not, how could this material be more helpful in making the 
proposed supplementary rule easier to understand?
    Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the 
supplementary rule to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

National Environmental Policy Act

    BLM has found that the proposed supplementary rule is categorically 
excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual 
(DM), Chapter 2, Appendix 1. This provision of the DM excludes from 
review under NEPA policies, directives, and regulations that are of an 
administrative, financial, or procedural nature and whose environmental 
effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves 
to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, 
either collectively or case by case. In addition, the proposed rule 
does not meet any of the 12 criteria for extraordinary circumstances 
listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental 
policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term 
``categorical exclusions'' means a category of actions which do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment and that have been found to have no such effect in

[[Page 51836]]

procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not 
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA 
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a 
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a 
substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rule 
and fees will have a minimal effect on outfitter guide business 
entities. The average cost to existing permit holders will be $10 per 
year, as most permits are renewed every five years.
    To determine an appropriate fee structure, the BLM interviewed BLM 
SRP managers across Colorado. Those interviewed included recreation 
permit and license managers of local and regional recreational 
programs, including Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area, Colorado 
Department of Regulatory Affairs, and Colorado State Parks River 
Outfitter Licensing Program. The BLM also interviewed the Executive 
Director of the Colorado Outfitters Association. The proposed fees are 
a fraction of the cost of comparable application and license fees 
across the State.
    BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed supplementary 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This proposed supplementary rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not result in an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more, in a major increase in costs or prices 
for consumers, individual industries, government agencies or regions, 
or in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. It 
will merely impose reasonable fees for SRP applications to offset costs 
for processing permits.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The proposed supplementary rule does not impose an unfunded mandate 
on state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector, of more than $100 million per year; nor does the 
proposed supplementary rule have a significant or unique effect on 
small governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act at (2 U.S.C. 1532). The proposed rule will impose reasonable 
fees for SRP applications to offset costs for processing permits. In 
determining the proposed SRP application fees, the BLM has coordinated 
with local, state, and Federal agencies.

Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)

    The proposed supplementary rule does not have takings implications 
and is not a government action capable of interfering with 
constitutionally protected property rights. The proposed supplementary 
rule would have minimal effect on private lands or property. Therefore, 
the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not 
cause a taking of private property or require preparation of a takings 
assessment under this Executive Order.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The proposed supplementary rule would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed 
supplementary rule would have minimal effect on state or local 
government. As for the SRP application fee to be imposed, BLM has 
coordinated with local, state, and Federal agencies, consulted with 
managers of local and regional recreational programs, including 
Arkansas Headwaters State Recreation Area, Colorado Department of 
Regulatory Affairs, and Colorado State Parks River Outfitter Licensing 
Program, before proposing the new fees for SRPs. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM has determined that the 
proposed supplementary rule does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    Under Executive Order 12988, we have found that the proposed 
supplementary rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that 
it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that 
the proposed supplementary rule for the BLM Colorado SRP application 
fee does not include policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation

    In accordance with E.O. 13352, BLM has determined that this 
proposed rule would not impede cooperative conservation; would take 
appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with 
ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other 
natural resources; would properly accommodate local participation in 
the Federal decision-making process; and would enhance the ability of 
the BLM to see that Colorado BLM programs, projects, and activities are 
consistent with protecting public health and safety.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed supplementary rule does not contain information 
collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must 
approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.

Author

    The principal author of the proposed supplementary rule is Jack 
Placchi, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Colorado State Office, Bureau of 
Land Management.

IV. Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Application Fees--BLM Colorado 
Proposed Supplementary Rule

    The Colorado State Office, BLM, hereby proposes a supplementary 
rule to establish application fees for special recreation permits for 
commercial uses, competitive uses, or organized group activities and 
events use of BLM lands in Colorado. This supplementary rule is 
proposed to go into effect on October 1, 2007. The fees schedule will 
be posted in all Colorado Field and State Offices and on the Internet 
at http://www.co.blm.gov.
    The fees for special recreation permit applications are:
     New Special Recreation Permits--$100.
     Renewals (re-issuance of expiring/expired permits)--$50.
     Transfers--$100.
     Annual operating authorizations--No fee charged.
    These fees do not apply to SRPs issued to individuals and 
authorizing use of designated Special Areas.

[[Page 51837]]

Authority

    The Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management, proposes this 
supplementary rule under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1740, 43 CFR 2932.31(d)(1)-(2), 8365.1-6, and BLM 
Manual H-2930-1. Enforcement authority for this supplementary rule on 
the public lands within Colorado is found in FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1733, and 
in 43 CFR 8360.0-7.

Penalties

    Under section 303(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), and 43 CFR 
8360.0-7, if you violate this supplementary rule on public lands within 
the boundaries established in the rule, you may be tried before a 
United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned 
for no more than 12 months, or both.

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Sally Wisely,
Colorado State Director.
 [FR Doc. E7-17827 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P