19050 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(B) Section 721.80(m) (commercial 

use other than: In passenger cars and 

vehicles in which the original charging 

of motor vehicle air conditioning 

systems with the PMN substance was 

done by the motor vehicle original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM), in 

stationary refrigeration, or in stationary 

air conditioning). 

(C) Section 721.80(o) (use in 

consumer products other than products 

used to recharge the motor vehicle air 

conditioning systems in passenger cars 

and vehicles in which the original 

charging of motor vehicle air 

conditioning systems with the PMN 

substance was done by the motor 

vehicle OEM). 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 721.10283 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii). 

■ c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii). 

■ d. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv). 

■ e. Revise paragraph (b)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 721.10283 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2- 

ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, 

C12–13-branched and linear alkyl ethers, 

sodium salts. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(l). 

(ii) Disposal. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.85. A significant new 

of the substances is any method of 

disposal of a waste stream containing 

the PMN substances other than by 

incineration or by injection into a Class 

I or II waste disposal well. 

(iii) Release to water. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), 

and (c)(2)(ii). 

(ii) Disposal. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.85. A significant new 

of the substances is any method of 

disposal of a waste stream containing 

the PMN substances other than by 

incineration or by injection into a Class 

I or II waste disposal well. 

(iii) Release to water. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), 

and (c)(2)(ii). 

(b) * * * 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), (i), and (j) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 721.10284 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii). 

■ c. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii). 

■ d. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv). 

■ e. Revise paragraph (b)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 721.10284 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2- 

ethanediyl)], .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-hydroxy-, 

C14–15-branched and linear alkyl ethers, 

sodium salts. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(l). 

(ii) Disposal. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.85. A significant new 

of the substances is any method of 

disposal of a waste stream containing 

the PMN substances other than by 

incineration or by injection into a Class 

I or II waste disposal well. 

(iii) Release to water. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.90(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), 

and (c)(2)(ii). 

(b) * * * 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a), (b), (c), (i), and (j) are 

applicable to manufacturers, importers, 

and processors of this substance. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Amend § 721.10515 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 721.10515 Partially fluorinated alcohol 

substituted glycols (generic). 

(a) * * * 

(1) The chemical substances 

identified generically as partially 

fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols 

(PMNs P–10–58, P–10–59, P–10–60, and 

P–10–184) are subject to reporting under 

this section for the significant new uses 

described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(k) (manufacture of 

the PMN substances according to the 

chemical synthesis and composition 

sections of the TSCA section 5(e) 

consent order, including analysis, 

reporting, and limitations of maximum 

impurity levels of certain fluorinated 

impurities; manufacture and import of 

P–10–60/P–10–184 other than when the 

mean number of moles of the ethoxy 

group is between 3 and 11 or the 

average number molecular weight is 

between 496 and 848 daltons based on 

the amounts of raw materials charged to 

the reactor; manufacture and import of 

P–10–58 and P–10–59 only as 

intermediates for the manufacture of P– 

10–60), and (q). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08090 Filed 4–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BA32 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the 

Georgetown Salamander 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, are amending our 

proposed rule under authority of section 

4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act), that provides 

measures that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Georgetown 

salamander (Eurycea naufragia), a 

species that occurs in Texas. We are 

seeking public comments on this 

revised proposed rule. We also 

announce the availability of a draft 

environmental assessment of this 

revised proposed rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 11, 2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see Public 

Comments, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the original 

proposed rule, this revised proposed 

rule, and the draft environmental 

assessment at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008, or by mail 

from the Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments on this revised proposed rule 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then click on the Search button. When 

you have located the correct document, 

you may submit a comment by clicking 

on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2014– 

0008; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19051 

Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by one of the methods described 

above. We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section, 

below, for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 

Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; 

telephone 512–490–0057; facsimile 

512–490–0974. 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 intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this revised proposed 

rule. We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Whether the measures outlined in 

this revised proposed rule are necessary 

and advisable for the conservation and 

management of the Georgetown 

salamander; 

(2) The effectiveness of the adaptive 

management component incorporated 

within the measures outlined in this 

revised proposed rule; and 

(3) Additional provisions the Service 

may wish to consider for a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) in order to conserve, 

recover, and manage the Georgetown 

salamander. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during our 

preparation of a final rule. Accordingly, 

the final rule may differ from this 

proposal. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy 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. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

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, Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 22, 2012, we published a 

proposed rule to list the Georgetown 

salamander (Eurycea naufragia), Salado 

salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), 

Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea 

tonkawae), and Austin blind 

salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as 

endangered species and to designate 

critical habitat for these species under 

the Act (77 FR 50768). On February 24, 

2014, we published a final 

determination to list the Georgetown 

salamander and the Salado salamander 

as threatened species under the Act (79 

FR 10236), and a proposed rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed 4(d) 

rule) for the Georgetown salamander (79 

FR 10077). Please see the final listing 

determination (79 FR 10236) for 

additional information concerning 

previous Federal actions for the 

Georgetown salamander. 

Background 

The Georgetown salamander is 

entirely aquatic and depends on water 

from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient 

quantity and quality to meet its lifehistory requirements for survival, 

growth, and reproduction. Degradation 

of habitat, in the form of reduced water 

quality and quantity and disturbance of 

spring sites, is the main threat to this 

species. For more information on the 

Georgetown salamander and its habitat, 

please refer to the February 24, 2014, 

final listing determination (79 FR 

10236). 

The Act does not specify particular 

prohibitions, or exceptions to those 

prohibitions, for threatened species. 

Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, 

the Secretary of the Interior has the 

discretion to issue such regulations as 

she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of such 

species. The Secretary also has the 

discretion to prohibit by regulation, 

with respect to any threatened wildlife 

species, any act prohibited under 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this 

discretion, the Service developed 

general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and 

exceptions to those prohibitions (50 

CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to 

most threatened wildlife species. 

Alternately, for other threatened 

species, under the authority of section 

4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop 

specific prohibitions and exceptions 

that are tailored to the specific 

conservation needs of the species. In 

such cases, some of the prohibitions and 

authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and 

17.32 may be appropriate for the species 

and incorporated into a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. However, these 

rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also 

include provisions that are tailored to 

the specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species and may be more or 

less restrictive than the general 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. 

Provisions of the Revised Proposed 4(d) 

Rule for the Georgetown Salamander 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Secretary may publish a rule that 

modifies the standard protections for 

threatened species and that contains 

prohibitions tailored to the conservation 

of the species and that are determined 

to be necessary and advisable. Under 

this revised proposed 4(d) rule, the 

Service would provide that all of the 

prohibitions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 

17.32 are necessary and advisable and, 

therefore, apply to the Georgetown 

salamander, except as noted below. This 

revised proposed 4(d) rule would not 

remove or alter in any way the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act. 

On December 20, 2013, the City 

Council of Georgetown, Texas, approved 

the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 

Water Quality Ordinance (Ordinance 

No. 2013–59). In the February 24, 2014, 

proposed 4(d) rule (79 FR 10077), the 

Service proposed that take incidental to 

activities that are conducted consistent 

with the conservation measures 

contained in the ordinance would not 

be prohibited under the Act. Since we 

published the proposed 4(d) rule, the 

City of Georgetown has incorporated, 

and expanded upon, the ordinance in 

their Unified Development Code (UDC), 

which is the primary tool to regulate 

land development in Georgetown. This 

revised proposed rule provides greater 

clarity around the activities that are 

proposed to be covered. 

For activities outside of habitat 

occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander, we propose that take of 

Georgetown salamanders that is 

incidental to regulated activities that are 

conducted consistent with the water 

quality regulations contained in chapter 

11.07 of the City of Georgetown Unified 

Development Code (UDC 11.07) 

(https://udc.georgetown.org/) would not 

be prohibited under the Act. The water 

quality regulations in UDC 11.07 were 

finalized on February 24, 2015. Chapter 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11.07 of the UDC describes stream and 

spring buffers, water quality best 

management practices, and geologic 

assessments that are required for 

property development within the 

Northern Edwards Aquifer Recharge 

Zone and the City of Georgetown. 

When a property owner submits a 

development application for a regulated 

activity on a tract of land located over 

the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, 

that individual is required to submit a 

geologic assessment. The geologic 

assessment identifies and describes all 

springs and streams on any subject 

property, and the UDC establishes buffer 

zones around identified springs and 

streams. For springs, the buffer 

encompasses 50 meters (164 feet) 

extending from the approximate center 

of the spring outlet that is identified in 

a geologic assessment. For streams, the 

boundaries of the buffer must coincide 

with either the boundaries of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

1 percent floodplain or a calculated 1 

percent floodplain, whichever is 

smaller. Thus, these stream buffers may 

vary depending on the size of the 

stream, but they may be no smaller than 

200 feet (61 meters) wide with at least 

75 feet (23 meters) from the centerline 

of the stream. Section 11.07.003 of the 

UDC states that no ‘‘regulated activities’’ 

may be conducted within the spring and 

stream buffers. ‘‘Regulated activities’’ 

are defined in Title 30, Texas 

Administrative Code section 213.3(28) 

as any construction-related or postconstruction activities on the Recharge 

Zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the 

potential for polluting the Edwards 

Aquifer and hydrologically connected 

surface streams. More specific details on 

spring and stream buffers can be found 

in sections 11.07.003A. and B. of the 

UDC. 

In addition to the establishment of 

these spring and stream buffers, the 

UDC outlines water quality best 

management practices designed to 

minimize sediment runoff, increase the 

removal of total suspended solids, 

prevent an increase in flow rates, and 

ensure spill containment for new or 

expanded roadways. These regulations 

in chapter 11.07 of the UDC are 

designed to reduce water quality 

degradation that may occur as a result 

of development. By reducing further 

water quality degradation that may 

result from development, these 

protective measures are also expected to 

minimize habitat degradation to the 

Georgetown salamander. 

The UDC also outlines exemptions 

from the requirement to prepare a 

geologic assessment, the process by 

which a landowner may request a 

variance to the spring and stream buffer 

requirements, and exemptions to the 

spring and stream buffer requirements 

of section 11.07.003. Small (less than 5 

acres (2 hectares)) single-family and 

two-family residential developments are 

exempt from submitting a geologic 

assessment; however, these 

developments are required to 

implement UDC water quality measures. 

Property owners may request a variance 

from the spring or stream buffer 

requirements. For unoccupied habitat, 

variances will be considered by the City 

of Georgetown’s Planning and Zoning 

Commission. Properties with a site 

occupied by the Georgetown salamander 

are exempt from the spring and stream 

buffer requirements in chapter 11.07. 

Rather, UDC Appendix A outlines 

voluntary conservation measures to be 

implemented when undertaking 

regulated activities that occur on a tract 

of land with an occupied site, or within 

984 feet (300 meters) of an occupied 

site. 

For activities involving habitat 

occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander, we propose that take of the 

Georgetown salamander that is 

incidental to regulated activities that are 

conducted consistent with the voluntary 

guidelines described in Appendix A of 

the UDC will not be prohibited under 

the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of the 

UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A 

establish stream and spring buffers and 

allowable activities within those buffers; 

however, the measures described in 

Appendix A create larger, more 

protective buffers than those that appear 

in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First, 

Appendix A establishes a ‘‘NoDisturbance Zone’’ in the stream or 

waterway that a spring drains directly 

into; this zone extends 264 feet (80 

meters) upstream and downstream from 

the approximate center the spring outlet 

of an occupied site and is bounded by 

the top of the bank. No regulated 

activities may occur within the ‘‘NoDisturbance Zone.’’ In addition, 

Appendix A establishes a ‘‘MinimalDisturbance Zone’’ for the subsurface 

area that drains to the spring(s) at an 

occupied site; this zone consists of the 

area within 984 feet (300 meters) of the 

approximate center of the spring outlet 

of an occupied site, except those areas 

within the ‘‘No-Disturbance Zone.’’ 

Most regulated activities are also 

prohibited in the ‘‘Minimal-Disturbance 

Zone,’’ but single-family developments; 

limited parks and open space 

development; and wastewater 

infrastructure will be allowed. For 

additional details on the buffers around 

occupied sites and prohibited actions, 

please refer to the UDC Appendix A to 

Chapter 11. 

Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also 

establishes an Adaptive Management 

Working Group (Working Group) that is 

responsible for reviewing data on a 

regular basis and making 

recommendations for specific changes 

in the management directions related to 

the voluntary conservation measures for 

occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive 

management of preservation of the 

Georgetown salamander is one of the 

duties tasked to the Working Group. 

Therefore, the guidelines described in 

Appendix A may change over time. 

Appendix A also indicates that the 

Working Group is authorized to hear 

and make recommendations to the 

Service regarding variances from the 

voluntary guidelines on a case-by-case 

basis and as long as the proposed 

variance will achieve the same level or 

greater level of water quality benefits 

and conservation objectives to the 

Georgetown salamander. The Working 

Group will also develop an annual 

report regarding the preservation of the 

Georgetown salamander, continuous 

monitoring of the Georgetown 

salamander, assessment of research 

priorities, and the effectiveness of the 

water quality regulations and 

guidelines. Copies of the UDC 11.07 and 

Appendix A are available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2014–0008. 

Proposed Determination 

Section 4(d) of the Act states that ‘‘the 

Secretary shall issue such regulations as 

[s]he deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation’’ of species 

listed as threatened species. 

Conservation is defined in the Act to 

mean ‘‘to use and the use of all methods 

and procedures which are necessary to 

bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to [the 

Act] are no longer necessary.’’ 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, the Secretary may 

find that it is necessary and advisable 

not to include a taking prohibition, or to 

include a limited taking prohibition. See 

Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 

2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 

2007); Washington Environmental 

Council v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 

(W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as 

affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity, 

853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule 

need not address all the threats to the 

species. As noted by Congress when the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19053 

Act was initially enacted, ‘‘once an 

animal is on the threatened list, the 

Secretary has an almost infinite number 

of options available to him with regard 

to the permitted activities for those 

species. [S]he may, for example, permit 

taking, but not importation of such 

species,’’ or she may choose to forbid 

both taking and importation but allow 

the transportation of such species, as 

long as the prohibitions, and exceptions 

to those prohibitions, will ‘‘serve to 

conserve, protect, or restore the species 

concerned in accordance with the 

purposes of the Act’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to take (including 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

attempt any of these), import or export, 

ship in interstate commerce in the 

course of commercial activity, or sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any wildlife species listed as 

an endangered species, without written 

authorization. It also is illegal under 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that is taken illegally. 

Prohibited actions consistent with 

section 9 of the Act are outlined for 

threatened wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a) 

and (b). For the Georgetown salamander, 

the Service has determined that a 4(d) 

rule tailored to its specific conservation 

needs is appropriate. This revised 

proposed 4(d) rule proposes that all 

prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) 

will apply to the Georgetown 

salamander, except as described below. 

Under this revised proposed 4(d) rule, 

incidental take of the Georgetown 

salamander will not be considered a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if the 

take occurs on privately owned, State, 

or County land and from regulated 

activities that are conducted consistent 

with the water quality protection 

measures contained in chapter 11.07 

and Appendix A of the City of 

Georgetown Unified Development Code. 

This revised proposed 4(d) rule refers to 

the definition of ‘‘regulated activities’’ 

in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code 

section 213.3(28), which are any 

construction related or postconstruction activities on the recharge 

zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the 

potential for polluting the Edwards 

Aquifer and hydrologically connected 

surface streams. Our rationale for 

including this provision is explained in 

the paragraphs that follow. 

The local community in the City of 

Georgetown and Williamson County has 

expressed a desire to design and 

implement a local solution to 

conserving the natural resources in their 

county, including water quality and the 

Georgetown salamander (City of 

Georgetown Resolution No. 082812–N). 

Because impervious cover levels within 

most of the springsheds known to be 

occupied by the Georgetown salamander 

are still relatively low, a window of 

opportunity exists to design and 

implement measures to protect water 

quality and, therefore, conserve the 

salamander. The City and County’s 

approach for accomplishing this 

conservation goal includes both 

regulatory and non-regulatory actions, 

as described below. Regulatory actions 

include passage of the Edwards Aquifer 

Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance 

(Ordinance No. 2013–59) by the 

Georgetown City Council on December 

20, 2013, and the revisions to their UDC 

(chapter 11.07) finalized on February 

24, 2015. Their approach also includes 

nonregulatory actions, such as the 

technical guidance provided in 

Appendix A of the UDC, which outlines 

additional conservation measures to 

protect water quality and to avoid direct 

destruction of occupied sites. 

Habitat modification, in the form of 

degraded water quality and quantity and 

disturbance of spring sites, is the 

primary threat to the Georgetown 

salamander. The conservation measures 

in both chapter 11.07 and Appendix A 

of the UDC provide a variety of water 

quality protection measures, such as the 

creation of buffers around springs and 

streams where regulated activities are 

prohibited, designed to lessen impacts 

to the water quality of springs and 

streams in the Edwards Aquifer 

Recharge Zone. Although the UDC 

addresses water quality, regulating 

water quantity and groundwater 

withdrawal is outside the scope of the 

UDC. The UDC is applied throughout 

the watersheds that contain the 

Georgetown salamander. This 

watershed-level approach works to 

avoid incremental environmental 

degradation that may go unnoticed on a 

small, individual project scale. Through 

this revised proposed 4(d) rule, we 

could achieve a greater level of 

conservation for the Georgetown 

salamander than we could without it 

because it encourages implementation 

of the water quality protective measures 

that are likely to limit habitat 

degradation for Georgetown 

salamanders. The majority of 

salamanders occur within 164 feet (50 

meters) of a spring outlet; this coincides 

with the spring and stream buffers for 

unoccupied sites. We also believe the 

salamander populations exist through 

underground conduits that may extend 

984 feet (300 meters) around cave or 

spring points; this area coincides with 

the size of the ‘‘Minimal-Disturbance’’ 

Zones for occupied sites. By limiting 

development activities within these 

respective areas, the measures in the 

UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are 

expected to limit water quality 

degradation in these areas that may 

provide suitable surface or subsurface 

habitat for the Georgetown salamander 

regardless of occupancy. In addition, 

although the areas that provide recharge 

and the source water for specific areas 

occupied by the salamander have not 

been precisely delineated, this 

watershed-level approach makes it 

likely that these unknown recharge 

areas are covered under the UDC. This 

is because the UDC requires buffers 

around all springs and streams where 

regulated activities are prohibited; thus, 

water quality impacts are expected to be 

limited. 

This watershed-level approach also 

includes an adaptive management 

component that will allow the Adaptive 

Management Working Group (Working 

Group) to evaluate the response of 

salamander populations to management 

actions and quickly respond and 

recommend adjustments, if necessary, to 

management strategies to protect water 

quality consistent with conserving the 

Georgetown salamander. The UDC 

formalizes the Working Group with 

representatives from the City of 

Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

university scientists, private real estate 

developers, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The role of the 

Working Group is to: 

• Review scientific information to 

understand the latest science on 

watershed management practices and 

the conservation of the Georgetown 

salamander; 

• Recommend support for additional 

Georgetown salamander scientific 

studies and oversee a long-term 

monitoring program to ensure that 

salamander abundance at monitored 

locations are stable or improving; 

• Conduct and evaluate water quality 

trend analysis as part of its long-term 

monitoring program to ensure water 

quality conditions do not decline and, 

in turn, result in impacts to salamander 

abundance; and 

• Make recommendations for changes 

to the UDC Appendix A for occupied 

sites if scientific and monitoring 

information indicates that water quality 

and salamander protection measures 

need changes to minimize impacts to 

salamander populations and to attain 

the goal of species conservation. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

While a window of opportunity exists 

to design and implement conservation 

measures to conserve the Georgetown 

salamander, human population levels 

and development are expected to 

increase rapidly in Williamson County 

(Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166– 

167). Therefore, the success of the local 

community’s efforts will depend on this 

robust adaptive management program 

designed to monitor and quickly assess 

the effectiveness of the identified 

conservation measures and strategies in 

attaining the goal of species’ 

conservation, and to respond quickly 

and adapt the measures and strategies as 

needed to attain the goal. The adaptive 

management approach will ensure that 

the water quality protective measures 

are serving their intended purpose of 

conserving the Georgetown salamander, 

thereby providing for the conservation 

of the species. Adaptive management 

measures related to UDC 11.07 and 

Appendix A that are agreed upon by the 

Working Group and consistent with the 

goal of preserving the Georgetown 

salamander would be covered under 

this revised proposed 4(d) rule. 

By not prohibiting incidental take 

resulting from regulated activities 

conducted in accordance with the UDC 

11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is 

supporting and encouraging a local 

solution to conservation of the 

Georgetown salamander. This revised 

proposed 4(d) rule would provide the 

Service the opportunity to work 

cooperatively, in partnership with the 

local community and State agencies, on 

conservation of the Georgetown 

salamander and the ecosystems on 

which it depends. Leveraging our 

conservation capacity with that of the 

State, local governments, and the 

conservation community at large may 

make it possible to attain biological 

outcomes larger than those we could 

attain ourselves due to the watershedscale protection the UDC requires. 

Further, these local partners are better 

able to design solutions that minimize 

socioeconomic impacts, thereby 

encouraging participation in measures 

that will protect water quality and 

conserve the Georgetown salamander. In 

addition, by not prohibiting incidental 

take resulting from regulated activities 

conducted in accordance with UDC 

11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is 

providing a streamlining mechanism for 

compliance with the Act for those 

project proponents who comply with 

the protective measures in the UDC 

11.07 and Appendix A and, thus, would 

be covered by this revised 4(d) rule. 

Developers who comply with these 

protective measures outlined in this 

proposed rule can implement their 

projects without any potential delay 

from seeking incidental take coverage 

from the Service, while also minimizing 

water quality degradation; this simple 

approach makes streamlined 

compliance more enticing for project 

proponents and is likely to result in 

increased implementation of water 

quality protective measures that benefit 

salamanders than would occur 

otherwise. 

Based on the rationale explained 

above, the provisions included in this 

revised proposed 4(d) rule are necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Georgetown 

salamander. If an activity that may affect 

the species is not regulated by UDC 

11.07 or is not in accordance with the 

UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, or a person 

or entity is not in compliance with all 

terms and conditions of the UDC 11.07 

and Appendix A, and the activity would 

result in an act that would be otherwise 

prohibited under 50 CFR 17.31, then 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 

for threatened species will apply. In 

such circumstances, the prohibitions of 

50 CFR 17.31 would be in effect, and 

authorization under 50 CFR 17.32 

would be required. 

In addition, nothing in this revised 

proposed 4(d) rule affects in any way 

other provisions of the Act such as the 

designation of critical habitat under 

section 4, recovery planning provisions 

of section 4(f), and consultation 

requirements under section 7. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

The Service is conducting a National 

Environment Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and has 

prepared a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) to address potential 

impacts of this revised proposed 4(d) 

rule. The NEPA analysis accomplishes 

three goals: (1) Determine if any action, 

or the absence of action, will have 

significant environmental impacts; (2) 

identify any unavoidable adverse 

effects; and (3) provide a basis for a 

decision on a proposal. The draft EA 

and this revised proposed 4(d) rule are 

being made available concurrently; both 

are available for a 30-day period for 

public review and comment (see the 

DATES and ADDRESSES sections, above). 

The Service will analyze and consider 

all substantive comments we receive on 

both the draft EA and revised proposed 

4(d) rule before issuing a final 4(d) rule. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this revised proposed rule. We 

will send peer reviewers copies of this 

revised proposed rule immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment, during the 

reopening of the public comment 

period, on our use and interpretation of 

the science used in developing our 

revised proposed 4(d) rule. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this revised proposed 4(d) rule in a 

manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996)), whenever an agency must 

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 effects of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19055 

substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to be required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

Based on the information that is 

available to us at this time, we certify 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), 

we published the final determination to 

list the Georgetown salamander as a 

threatened species. That rule became 

effective on March 26, 2014. As a result, 

the Georgetown salamander is currently 

covered by the full protections of the 

Act, including the full section 9 

prohibitions that make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (including harass, 

harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect; or attempt any of 

these), import or export, ship in 

interstate commerce in the course of 

commercial activity, or sell or offer for 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce 

any wildlife species listed as an 

endangered species, without written 

authorization. It also is illegal under 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that is taken illegally. 

Prohibited actions consistent with 

section 9 of the Act are outlined for 

threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a) 

and (b). This revised proposed 4(d) rule 

proposes that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 

17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the 

Georgetown salamander, except 

regulated activities that are conducted 

consistent with the water quality 

protective measures contained in 

Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the 

Unified Development Code, which 

would result in a less restrictive 

regulation under the Act, as it pertains 

to the Georgetown salamander, than 

would otherwise exist. For the above 

reasons, we certify that if promulgated, 

the revised proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

(b) This revised proposed 4(d) rule 

proposes that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 

17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the 

Georgetown salamander, except 

activities that are conducted consistent 

with the water quality protection 

measures contained in Chapter 11.07 

and Appendix A of the Unified 

Development Code, which would result 

in a less restrictive regulation under the 

Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown 

salamander, than would otherwise exist. 

As a result, we do not believe that this 

rule would significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this proposed rule would not 

have significant takings implications. 

We have determined that the rule has no 

potential takings of private property 

implications as defined by this 

Executive Order because this revised 

proposed 4(d0 rule would result in a 

less-restrictive regulation under the 

Endangered Species Act than would 

otherwise exist. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this revised proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. This proposed rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the State, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the State, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this revised proposed 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking 

actions that significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution, and use. For 

reasons discussed within this proposed 

rule, we believe that the rule would not 

have any effect on energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the proposed rule, 

your comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19056 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment, as defined 

under the authority of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For 

information on how to obtain a copy of 

the draft environmental assessment, see 

ADDRESSES, above. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We determined that there are no known 

tribal lands within the range of the 

Georgetown salamander. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and the 

Southwest Regional Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

at 79 FR 10077 (February 24, 2014) as 

set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.43 by revising 

paragraph (e)(2), as proposed to be 

added on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 

10077), to read as follows: 

§ 17.43 Special rules—amphibians. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Exemptions from prohibitions. 

Incidental take of the Georgetown 

salamander will not be considered a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if the 

take occurs on privately owned, State, 

or county land from regulated activities 

that are conducted consistent with the 

water quality protection measures 

contained in chapter 11.07 and 

Appendix A of the City of Georgetown 

(Texas) Unified Development Code 

(UDC) dated February 24, 2015. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Robert Dreher, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08093 Filed 4–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 140819687–5314–01] 

RIN 0648–BE40 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 

Framework Amendment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

management measures described in 

Framework Amendment 2 to the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources in 

the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region 

(Framework Amendment 2), as prepared 

and submitted by the South Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils). If 

implemented, this proposed rule would 

remove the unlimited commercial trip 

limit for Spanish mackerel in Federal 

waters off the east coast of Florida on 

weekdays beginning December 1 of each 

year. Since the trip limit system has 

been in place, fishery conditions and 

regulations have changed. This 

proposed rule intends to modify the 

current trip limit system to better fit the 

current fishery conditions and catch 

limits for Atlantic migratory group 

Spanish mackerel in the southern zone, 

while increasing social and economic 

benefits of the CMP fishery. 

DATES: NMFS must receive written 

comments on the proposed rule by May 

11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2014–0136’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0136, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, 

NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South St., 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Framework Amendment 2 to the FMP, 

which includes an environmental 

assessment and a regulatory impact 

review, is available from 

www.regulations.gov or the Southeast 

Regional Office Web site at http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS