Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6613 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ’’for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply 

to this proceeding. 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comment may 

be filed using: (1) the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1988). 

Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For submitting 

comments, filers should follow the 

instructions provided on the website. 

For ECFS filer, if multiple docket or 

rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filer must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e–mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an e– 

mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ’’get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

For Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rule making number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first–class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand–delivered or messenger– 

delivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

All hand deliveries must be held 

together with rubber bands or fasteners. 

Any envelope must be disposed of 

before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first–class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e–mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Government Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) , 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, 

Audio Division, 

Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2857 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0104] 

[MO 92210-0-0009-B4] 

[RIN 1018-AU88] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing with Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Georgia Pigtoe 

Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and 

Rough Hornsnail 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, availability of draft 

economic analysis, amended required 

determinations, and announcement of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis for the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for 3 mollusks, Georgia 

pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema 

hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail 

(Leptoxis foremani), and rough 

hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani), under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(DEA) and an amended required 

determinations section of the proposal. 

We are reopening the comment period 

for an additional 30 days to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed listing and designation of 

critical habitat for the 3 mollusks, the 

associated DEA, and the amended 

required determinations section. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. We also announce a public 

hearing; the public is invited to review 

and comment on any of the above 

actions associated with the proposed 

listing and critical habitat designation at 

the public hearing or in writing. 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

consider public comments received or 

postmarked on or before March 12, 

2010. 

Public Hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing from 7 to 10 p.m. Central Time, 

on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, on the 

campus of Auburn University 

Montgomery, 7440 East Drive, 

Montgomery, Alabama, at the Taylor 

Center in conference room 223. 

Maps of the critical habitat units and 

information on the species will be 

available for public review at the 

hearing location for 1 hour prior to the 

public hearing (6 to 7 p.m.). 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0104. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2008-0104; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

Public Hearing: We will hold the 

public hearing on March 2, 2010 at 7 

p.m. Central Time, at the campus of 

Auburn University Montgomery, Taylor 

Center-conference room 223, 7440 East 

Drive, Montgomery, Alabama. We will 

post all comments and the public 

hearing transcript on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 

Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office at 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, 

MS 39213; by telephone (601-321-1122); 

or by facsimile (601-965-4340). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on the proposed listing 

and designation of critical habitat for 

Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 29, 2009 (74 FR 31114), the DEA 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Georgia pigtoe mussel, 

interrupted rocksnail, and rough 

hornsnail, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this rule. 

Verbal testimony or written comments 

may also be presented during the public 

hearing (see the Public Hearing section 

below for more information). We will 

consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate areas as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to Georgia pigtoe 

mussel, interrupted rocksnail, and 

rough hornsnail from human activity, 

the degree of which can be expected to 

increase due to the designation, and 

whether the benefit of designation 

would outweigh threats to the species 

caused by the designation, such that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

•The amount and distribution of 

Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail habitat; 

•What areas containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species should be included in the 

designation and why; 

• Special management considerations 

or protections for the features essential 

to Georgia pigtoe mussel, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail 

conservation that have been identified 

in the proposed rule may need, 

including managing for the potential 

effects of climate change; and 

•What areas not currently occupied 

by the 3 species are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Specific information on Georgia 

pigtoe mussel, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail and the habitat 

components (physical and biological 

features) essential to the conservation of 

these species. 

(4) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of these 

species. 

(5) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in areas occupied 

by the species, and their possible 

impacts on the species and the proposed 

critical habitat. 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that are subject to these impacts. 

(7) Whether the benefits of excluding 

any particular area from critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area as critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering the 

potential impacts and benefits of the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

(8) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

or DEA by one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. We will post all 

hardcopy comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov as well. If you 

submit a hardcopy comment that 

includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. Please include 

sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation 

used in preparing this proposed rule 

and DEA, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule and the DEA on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2008-0104, 

or by mail from the Mississippi Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). 

Public Hearing 

We are holding a public hearing on 

the date listed in the DATES section at 

the address listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We are holding this public 

hearing to provide interested parties an 

opportunity to provide verbal testimony 

(formal, oral comments) or written 

comments regarding the proposed 

critical habitat designation, the 

associated DEA, and the amended 

required determinations section. An 

informational session will be held on 

the day of the hearing from 6:00 p.m. to 

7:00 p.m. Central Time. During this 

session, Service biologists will be 

available to provide information and 

address questions on the proposed rule 

in advance of the formal hearing. 

People needing reasonable 

accommodations in order to attend and 

participate in the public hearings 

should contact Stephen Ricks, 

Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, at 

601-321-1122, as soon as possible (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). In order to allow sufficient 

time to process requests, please call no 

later than 1 week before the hearing 

date. Information regarding this notice 

is available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Background 

We proposed to list the Georgia pigtoe 

mussel (Pleurobema hanleyianum), 

interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis 

foremani), and rough hornsnail 

(Pleurocera foremani), as endangered 

species, with critical habitat under the 

Act, on June 29, 2009 (74 FR 31114). 

The Georgia pigtoe, interrupted 

rocksnail, and rough hornsnail are 

endemic to the Coosa River drainage 

within the Mobile River Basin of 

Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. 

These 3 species have disappeared from 

large portions of their natural ranges 

due to the construction of dams that 

eliminated or reduced water currents 

and caused changes in habitat and water 

quality. The surviving populations are 

small, localized, and highly vulnerable 

to water quality and habitat 

deterioration. 

We proposed to designate critical 

habitat concurrently with listing for the 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

and rough hornsnail under the Act. In 

total, approximately 258 kilometers 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6615 

(km) (160 miles (mi)) of stream and river 

channels fall within the boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

for the 3 species: 153 km (95 mi) for the 

Georgia pigtoe, 101 km (63 mi) for the 

interrupted rocksnail, and 28 km (17 mi) 

for the rough hornsnail. The proposed 

critical habitat is located in Cherokee, 

Clay, Coosa, Elmore and Shelby 

Counties, Alabama; Gordon, Floyd, 

Murray, and Whitfield Counties, 

Georgia; and Bradley and Polk Counties, 

Tennessee. 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions 

affecting critical habitat are required to 

consult with us on the effects of their 

proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate critical habitat based upon 

the best scientific data available, after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, impact on national security, or 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

We may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area as critical 

habitat, provided such exclusion will 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. We have not proposed to 

exclude any areas from critical habitat. 

However, the final decision on whether 

to exclude any areas will be based on 

the best scientific data available at the 

time of the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period and information about 

the economic impact of designation. 

Accordingly, we have prepared a draft 

economic analysis concerning the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

(DEA), which is available for review and 

comment (see ADDRESSES section). 

The intent of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 3 

mollusks. The DEA quantifies the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for the 3 mollusks, 

some of which will likely be incurred 

whether or not we designate critical 

habitat. The economic impact of the 

proposed critical habitat designation is 

analyzed by comparing scenarios both 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without 

critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical 

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline 

for the analysis, considering protections 

already in place for the species (e.g., 

under the Federal listing and other 

Federal, State, and local regulations). 

The baseline, therefore, represents the 

costs incurred regardless of whether 

critical habitat is designated. The ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. The 

incremental conservation efforts and 

associated impacts are those not 

expected to occur absent the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we may consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. 

The DEA provides estimated costs of 

the foreseeable potential economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the species over the next 

30 years, which we determined to be the 

appropriate period for analysis because 

limited planning information was 

available for most activities to forecast 

activity levels for projects beyond a 30– 

year timeframe. The DEA estimates the 

baseline costs associated with potential 

future conservation efforts for the 3 

mollusks to be $8.89 million to $9.16 

million annually, assuming a seven 

percent discount rate. Ninety-six 

percent of baseline costs quantified in 

this analysis are conservation efforts 

related to lost hydropower production 

value at 3 facilities. The remaining four 

percent of potential post-designation 

baseline costs are related to 

transportation activities, water quality 

management activities, and National 

Forest management activities. The DEA 

anticipates that incremental costs 

associated with this rulemaking will be 

administrative in nature because the 

consideration of adverse modification 

for the 3 mollusks is not expected to 

result in significant additional 

conservation efforts and measures for 

the mollusks above the consideration of 

jeopardy in occupied habitat. 

Additionally, designated critical habitat 

for 11 other mussels with similar 

primary constituent elements and 

threats as the 3 mollusks overlap with 

all but 5 river miles of the proposed 

critical habitat for these 3 mussel 

species. Therefore, activities that are 

already considered and planned for the 

11 other mussels are considered in the 

baseline cost verses the incremental cost 

of this proposed designation. As a 

result, the total incremental costs 

associated with this rule are estimated 

to be $354,000 over 30 years, or $43,000 

annually, discounted at seven percent. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our June 29, 2009, proposed rule 

(74 FR 31114), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have now 

made use of the DEA data in making 

this determination. In this document, 

we affirm the information in our 

proposed rule concerning: Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, and Use), E.O. 12630 

(Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

However, based on the DEA data, we are 

amending our required determinations 

concerning the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions), as described below. 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

designation, we provide our analysis for 

determining whether the proposed rule 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of a final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgia pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema 

hanleyianum), interrupted rocksnail 

(Leptoxis foremani), and rough 

hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani) would 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, we considered the number of 

small entities affected within particular 

types of economic activities, such as 

residential and commercial 

development. In order to determine 

whether it is appropriate for our agency 

to certify that this rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered each industry or category 

individually. In estimating the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. 

If we finalize this proposed listing 

rule and critical habitat designation, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

under section 7 of the Act if their 

activities may affect designated critical 

habitat. In areas where the 3 mollusks 

are present, Federal agencies will also 

be required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act, due to the 

endangered status of the species. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat would be incorporated into the 

same consultation process. 

In the DEA, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

entities resulting from implementation 

of conservation actions related to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Georgia pigtoe mussel 

(Pleurobema hanleyianum), interrupted 

rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani), and rough 

hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani). Based 

on that analysis, impacts on small 

entities due to this rule are expected to 

be modest because the incremental costs 

of the rule are estimated to be 

administrative in nature. The only 

incremental impacts associated with 

this rulemaking are administrative costs 

of consultation under section 7 of the 

Act. The administrative costs described 

in Appendix B of the DEA are 

predominantly associated with water 

management, water quality, National 

Forest, and construction. The following 

percentages are estimated annualized 

incremental impacts by activities 

discounted at 7 percent: 42 percent 

transportation construction, 33 percent 

water quality, 18 percent national forest 

activities, and 7 percent water 

management. Tribal lands are not 

expected to be affected by the 

designation. Incremental costs to all 

parties are not expected to exceed 

$43,600 annualized (discounted at 

seven percent). Third parties (some of 

which may be small entities) would bear 

significantly less than this total— 

approximately $5,060 annualized, or 

less than 1 percent impact for all 

sectors. These potential impacts may 

result from consultations on changes in 

water management, actions that affect 

water quality, dredging activities, or 

other activities in the region. Please 

refer to the DEA of the proposed critical 

habitat designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential impacts. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Information for this analysis 

was gathered from the Small Business 

Administration, stakeholders, and the 

Service. For the reasons discussed 

above, and based on currently available 

information, we certify that if 

promulgated, the proposed designation 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities. Therefore, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is the staff of the Mississippi Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: January 25, 2010 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks 

[FR Doc. 2010–2870 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 0911231415–0052–01] 

RIN 0648–XT12 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Notice of 90–Day Finding on a Petition 

to List 83 Species of Corals as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: 90–day petition finding; request 

for information. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90– 

day finding on a petition to list 83 

species of corals as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. We find that 

the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted for 82 species; we 

find that the petition fails to present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

Oculina varicosa. Therefore, we initiate 

status reviews of 82 species of corals to 

determine if listing under the ESA is 

warranted. To ensure these status 

reviews are comprehensive, we solicit 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding these coral species. 

DATES: Information and comments must 

be submitted to NMFS by April 12, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data, identified by the 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS