Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58981

and future benefits for the shipping

public. The plan must also describe any

potential area of service degradation

that might result due to operational

changes. The plan must encompass:

(a) Integration of operations. Based on

the operating plan, and using

benchmarks for the year immediately

preceding the filing date of the

application, applicants must describe

how the transaction will result in

improved service levels and must

identify potential instances where

service may be degraded. While precise

in nature, this description is expected to

be a route level review rather than a

shipper-by-shipper review. Nonetheless,

the plan should be sufficient for

individual shippers to evaluate the

projected improvements and respond to

the potential areas of service

degradation for their customary traffic

routings. The plan should inform Class

II and III railroads and other connecting

railroads of the operational changes that

may have an impact on their operations,

including operations involving major

gateways.

(b) Coordination of freight and

passenger operations. If Amtrak or

commuter services are operated over the

lines of the applicant carriers,

applicants must describe definitively

how they will continue to operate these

lines to fulfill existing performance

agreements for those services. Whether

or not the passenger services operated

are over lines of the applicants,

applicants must establish operating

protocols that ensure effective

communications with Amtrak and/or

regional rail passenger operators in

order to minimize any potential

transaction-related negative impacts.

(c) Yard and terminal operations. The

operational fluidity of yards and

terminals is key to the successful

implementation of a transaction and

effective service to shippers. Applicants

must describe how the operations of

principal classification yards and major

terminals will be changed or revised

and how these revisions will affect

service to customers. As part of this

analysis, applicants must furnish dwell

time information for one year prior to

the transaction for each facility

described above, and estimate what the

expected dwell time will be after the

revised operations are implemented.

Also required will be a discussion of ontime performance for the principal yards

and terminals in the same terms as

required for dwell time.

(d) Infrastructure improvements.

Applicants must identify potential

infrastructure impediments (using

volume/capacity line and terminal

forecasts), formulate solutions to those

impediments, and develop timeframes

for resolution. Applicants must also

develop a capital improvement plan (to

support the operating plan) for timely

funding and completing the

improvements critical to transition of

operations. They should also describe

improvements related to future growth,

and indicate the relationship of the

improvements to service delivery.

(e) Information technology systems.

Because the accurate and timely

integration of applicants’ information

systems are vitally important to service

delivery, applicants must identify the

process to be used for systems

integration and training of involved

personnel. This must include

identification of the principal

operations-related systems, operating

areas affected, implementation

schedules, the realtime operations data

used to test the systems, and preimplementation training requirements

needed to achieve completion dates. If

such systems will not be integrated and

on line prior to implementation of the

transaction, applicants must describe

the interim systems to be used and how

those systems will assure service

delivery.

(f) Customer service. To achieve and

maintain customer confidence in the

transaction and to ensure the successful

integration and consolidation of existing

customer service functions, applicants

must identify their plans for the staffing

and training of personnel within or

supporting the customer service centers.

This discussion must include specific

information on the planned steps to

familiarize customers with any new

processes and procedures that they may

encounter in using the consolidated

systems and/or changes in contact

locations or telephone numbers.

(g) Labor. Applicants must furnish a

plan for reaching necessary labor

implementing agreements. Applicants

must also provide evidence that

sufficient qualified employees to effect

implementation will be available at the

proper locations prior to the transaction.

(h) Training. Applicants must

establish a plan to provide necessary

training to employees involved with

operations, train and engine service,

operating rules, dispatching, payroll and

timekeeping, field data entry, safety and

hazardous material compliance, and

contractor support functions (i.e., crew

van service), as well as to other

employees in functions that will be

affected by the transaction.

(i) Contingency plans for mergerrelated service disruptions. In order to

address potential disruptions of service

that may occur, applicants must

establish contingency plans. Those

plans, based upon available resources

and traffic flows and density, must

identify potential areas of disruption

and the risk of occurrence. Applicants

must provide evidence that contingency

plans are in place to minimize negative

service impacts and promptly restore

service.

(j) Timetable. Applicants must

identify all major functional or system

changes/consolidations that will occur

and the time line for successful

completion.

10. A new § 1180.11 is proposed to be

added to read as follows:

§ 1180.11 Additional information needs for

transnational mergers.

(a) Applicants must explain how

cooperation with the Federal Railroad

Administration will be maintained

without regard to the national origins of

merger applicants.

(b) Applicants must assess the

likelihood that commercial decisions

made by foreign railroads could be

based on national or provincial rather

than broader economic considerations,

and be detrimental to the interests of the

United States, and discuss any

ownership restrictions imposed on them

by foreign governments.

(c) Applicants must discuss and

assess the national defense ramifications

of the proposed merger.

[FR Doc. 00–25043 Filed 10–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG12

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Public

Comment Period and Notice of

Availability of Draft Economic Analysis

for Proposed Critical Habitat

Determination for the Zapata

Bladderpod.

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Extension of

public comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis.

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 the Zapata

bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila).

We also provide notice that the public

comment period for the proposal is

reopened to allow all interested parties

58982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to submit written comments on the

proposal and the draft economic

analysis. Comments submitted during

the previous comment period need not

be resubmitted as they will be

incorporated into the public record and

will be fully considered in the final

determination on the proposal.

DATES: The original comment period

closed on September 18, 2000. The

comment period is hereby reopened and

now closes on November 2, 2000.

Comments from all interested parties

must be received by the closing date.

Any comments that are received after

the closing date may not be considered

in the final decision on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft

economic analysis are available on the

Internet at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/library/

or by writing to the Field Supervisor,

Ecological Services Field Office, c/o

TAMUCC, Box 338, 6300 Ocean Drive,

Corpus Christi, Texas 78412, or

facsimile 1–361–994–8262. All written

comments should be submitted to the

Field Supervisor at the above address.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Loretta Pressly, Fish and Wildlife

Biologist, at the above address

(telephone 1–361–994–9005).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Zapata bladderpod was listed as

an endangered species on December 22,

1999. The Zapata bladderpod is a

perennial plant that grows

opportunistically; that is, the density of

Zapata bladderpod plants and the sizes

of populations fluctuate in response to

rainfall. They are cryptic plants, which

show little vegetative growth during

drought conditions, hampering survey

efforts for additional populations. All

known populations of the Zapata

bladderpod occur on graveled to sandyloam upland terraces above the Rio

Grande floodplain in South Texas.

Critical habitat was proposed on July

19, 2000. Of the ten populations of

Zapata bladderpod that have been

located, only three populations are still

known to display live plants. The

introduction of non-native species such

as pasture grass, overgrazing, urban

development, and oil and gas

production activities have all

contributed to the decline of the plant.

Ten areas of critical habitat are being

proposed for the Zapata bladderpod.

Seven Lower Rio Grande Valley

National Wildlife Refuge tracts in Starr

County are proposed, as well as one

private land site also in Starr County.

Two sites along the Texas Department of

Transportation’s Highway 83 right-ofway in Zapata County are being

proposed as critical habitat. Altogether

5,330 acres of land are being proposed

for critical habitat.

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

we designate or revise critical habitat

based upon the best scientific and

commercial data available and after

taking into consideration the economic

impact, and 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. Consequently,

we have prepared a draft economic

analysis concerning the proposed

critical habitat designation, which is

available for review and comment at the

above Internet and mailing addresses.

Public Comments Solicited

We solicit comments on the draft

economic analysis described in this

notice, as well as any other aspect of the

proposed designation of critical habitat

for the Zapata bladderpod. Our final

determination on the proposed critical

habitat will take into consideration

comments and any additional

information received by the date

specified above. All previous comments

and information submitted during the

comment period need not be

resubmitted. The comment period is

extended to November 2, 2000. Written

comments may be submitted to the

Field Supervisor at the above address.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Loretta Pressly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (see ADDRESSES).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Renne Lohoefener,

Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25323 Filed 10–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P