Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27255

We invite comment on all aspects of

this proposal. Any person that wishes to

participate as a party of record in this

matter must notify us of this intent by

May 28, 1998. In order to be designated

a party of record, a person must satisfy

the filing requirements outlined in the

ADDRESSES section. We will then

compile and issue a service list. Copies

of comments and replies must be served

on all persons designated on the list as

a party of record. Comments on the

proposal are due June 15, 1998; replies

are due July 15, 1998.

A copy of this decision is being

served on all parties on the service list

in Ex Parte No. 575. This decision will

serve as notice that persons who were

parties of record in the Ex Parte 575

proceeding will not be placed on the

service list in the Ex Parte 628

proceeding unless they notify us of their

intent to participate therein.

The Board preliminarily certifies that

the proposed rules, if adopted, would

not have a significant effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

While the proposed rules, if adopted,

may ease the burdens on obtaining

alternative rail service in the limited

situations described, we do not expect

them to affect a substantial number of

small entities. The Board, however,

seeks comments on whether there

would be effects on small entities that

should be considered.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1146

Administrative practice and

procedures, Railroads.

Decided: May 12, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 49, chapter X, Part 1146,

consisting of § 1146.1, is proposed to be

added to read as follows:

PART 1146—EXPEDITED RELIEF FOR

SERVICE INADEQUACIES

1. The authority for part 1146 will

read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721, 11102, 11123,

and 10705.

§ 1146.1 Prescription of Alternative Rail

Service

(a) General. Alternative rail service

will be prescribed under 49 U.S.C.

11102(a), 11102(c), 10705(a), or

11123(a), if the Board determines that,

over an identified period of time, there

has been a substantial, measurable

deterioration in rail service provided by

the incumbent carrier.

(b)(1) Petition for Relief. Parties may

seek relief described in paragraph (a) of

this section by filing an appropriate

petition containing:

(i) A full explanation, together with

all supporting evidence, to demonstrate

that the standard for relief contained in

paragraph (a) of this section is met;

(ii) A summary of the petitioner’s

discussions with the incumbent carrier

of the service problems and the reasons

why the incumbent carrier is unlikely to

restore adequate rail service consistent

with the shipper’s needs within a

reasonable period of time;

(iii) A commitment from another

available railroad to provide alternative

service that would meet the shipper’s

service needs, and how that carrier

would provide the service safely

without degrading service to its existing

customers or unreasonably interfering

with the incumbent’s overall ability to

provide service; and

(iv) A certification of service of the

petition, by overnight delivery, on the

incumbent carrier.

(2) Reply. The incumbent carrier must

file a reply to a petition under this

subsection within five (5) business days.

(3) Rebuttal. The party requesting

relief may file rebuttal no more than

three (3) business days later.

(c) Presumption of Continuing Need.

Unless otherwise indicated in the

Board’s order, a Board order issued

under paragraph (a) of this section that

prescribes relief under 49 U.S.C.

11123(a) shall establish a rebuttable

presumption that the transportation

emergency will continue for more than

30 days from the date of that order.

(d)(1) Petition to Terminate Relief.

Should the Board prescribe alternative

rail service under paragraph (a) of this

section, the incumbent carrier may

subsequently file a petition to terminate

that relief. Such a petition shall contain

a full explanation, together with all

supporting evidence, to demonstrate

that the carrier is providing, or is

prepared to provide, adequate service to

affected shippers. Absent special

circumstances, carriers are discouraged

from filing such a petition less than 90

days after relief is granted under

paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Reply. Parties must file replies to

petitions to terminate filed under this

subsection within five (5) business days.

(3) Rebuttal. The incumbent carrier

may file any rebuttal no more than three

(3) business days later.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–13095 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants, Notice of Reopening of

Comment Period on the Proposed

Threatened Status of the Sacramento

Splittail

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice of the reopening of the

comment period for the proposed

threatened status for the Sacramento

splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus).

The comment period has been reopened

to acquire additional information on the

status, abundance and distribution of

the Sacramento splittail in the Central

Valley of California.

DATES: Comments received by July 17,

1998 will be considered by the Service.

ADDRESSES: Written comments,

materials and data, and available reports

and articles concerning this proposal

should be sent directly to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite

130, Sacramento, California 95821.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Thabault, at the address listed

above (telephone 916/979–2725,

facsimile 916/979–2723).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Sacramento splittail

(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), is the

only large cyprinid that is endemic to

California’s Central Valley, where they

were once widely distributed (Moyle

1976). Historically, splittail were found

as far north as Redding on the

Sacramento River, as far south as the

present-day site of Friant Dam on the

San Joaquin River, and as far upstream

as the current Oroville Dam site on the

Feather River and Folsom Dam site on

the American River (Rutter 1908).

In recent times, dams and diversions

have increasingly prevented upstream

access to large rivers, and the species is

now apparently restricted to a small

portion of its former range (Moyle and

Yoshiyama 1992). Splittail enter the
27256 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

lower reaches of the Feather (Jones and

Stokes 1993) and American rivers

(Charles Hanson, State Water

Contractors, in litt., 1993) on occasion;

however, the species now is largely

confined to the delta, Suisun Bay,

Suisun Marsh, and Napa Marsh. The

‘‘Delta’’ refers to all tidal waters

contained within the legal definition of

the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Delta, as delineated by

section 12220 of the State of California’s

Water Code of 1969. Generally, the Delta

is contained within a triangular area

that extends south from the City of

Sacramento to the confluence of the

Stanilaus and San Joaquin Rivers at the

southeast corner and Chipps Island in

Suisun Bay.

In recent years, splittail have been

found most often in slow moving

sections of rivers and sloughs and deadend sloughs (Moyle et al. 1982, Daniels

and Moyle 1983). Reports from the

1950’s, however, mention Sacramento

River spawning migrations and catches

of splittail during fast tides in Suisun

Bay (Caywood 1974). California

Department of Fish and Game survey

data from the last 15 years indicate that

the highest catches occurred in shallow

areas subject to flooding. Historically,

major flood basins, distributed

throughout the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valleys, provided spawning and

rearing habitat. These flood basins have

all been reclaimed or modified into

flood control structures (bypasses).

Although primarily a freshwater

species, splittail can tolerate salinities

as high as 10 to 18 parts per thousand

(Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992).

On January 10, 1995, a second

comment period was opened for 45

days, and a 6-month extension added to

the final rulemaking time frame, in

accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of

the Act. A moratorium on listing

actions, imposed on April 10, 1995

(Pub. L. 104–6), was lifted on April 26,

1996. Severe funding constraints

imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995

and April 1996 were followed by

passage of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996,

allowing work to continue on various

listing actions in accordance with fiscal

year guidance that assigned priorities in

a multi-tiered approach in accordance

with section 4 of the Act (61 FR 64479).

The guidance stated that handling

emergency situations was highest

priority (Tier 1), and resolving the

listing status of outstanding proposed

rules was second highest priority (Tier

2). Processing of this proposed rule fell

under Tier 2.

On March 19 and March 20, 1998, the

California Department of Water

Resources and the State Water

Contractors, respectively, requested a

reopening of the comment period. The

basis of this request is that substantial

data have been collected since 1995

regarding the abundance and

distribution of the splittail. The Service

believes that consideration of this and

any new information is significant to

make the final determination for the

Sacramento splittail. For this reason, the

Service particularly seeks information

concerning abundance and distribution

data for this species from 1995–1997.

Specifically, the Service seeks

comments regarding the paper

‘‘Resilience of Splittail in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary’’

(Sommer et al. 1997), and how the

information contained in this paper

effects the Service’s recommendation for

listing the Sacramento splittail as a

threatened species.

Written comments may be submitted

until July 17, 1998 to the Service office

in the ADDRESSES section.

Author.

The primary author of this notice is

Diane Windham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (see ADDRESSES section).

References

Caywood, M.L. 1974. Contributions to the life

history of the splittail Pogonichthys

macrolepidotus (Ayres). M.S. Thesis,

California State University, Sacramento.

Daniels, R.A., and P.B. Moyle. 1983. Life

history of the splittail (Cyprinidae:

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Fish.

Bull. 84:105–117.

Jones and Stokes Assoc., Inc. 1993. Sutter

Bypass fisheries technical memorandum

II: Potential entrapment of juvenile

chinook salmon in the proposed gravel

mining pond. May 27, 1993. (JSA 91–

272). Sacramento, California. Prepared

for Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento,

California. 31 pp. + Appendix.

Moyle, P.B., J.J. Smith, R.A. Daniels, and

D.M. Balz. 1982. Distribution and

ecology of stream fishes of the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage

System, California: A review. Univ. Calif.

Publ. Zool. 115:225–256.

Moyle. P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1992.

Fishes, aquatic diversity management

areas, and endangered species: A plan to

protect California’s native aquatic biota.

Draft report prepared for California

Policy Seminar, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley,

California. July 1992. 196 pp.

Rutter, C. 1908. The fishes of the SacramentoSan Joaquin basin, with a study of their

distribution and variation. U.S. Bull.

27:103–152.

Sommer, T., R. Baxter, and B. Herbold. 1997.

Resilience of the Splittail in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 126:961–976.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

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

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 98–13083 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980508122–8122–01; I.D.

042498A]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Control

Date for Spiny Dogfish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; notice of control date for

spiny dogfish fishery.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that anyone

entering the spiny dogfish (Squalus

acanthias) (dogfish) fishery after May

18, 1998 (control date) will not be

assured of future access to the dogfish

resource in Federal waters if a

management regime is developed and

implemented under the MagnusonStevens Act that limits the number of

participants in the fishery. This

announcement is intended to promote

awareness of potential eligibility criteria

for future access to that portion of the

dogfish fishery and to discourage new

entries into this fishery based on

economic speculation while the MidAtlantic and New England Fishery

Management Councils (Councils)

contemplate whether and how access to

that portion of the dogfish fishery in

Federal waters should be controlled.

The potential eligibility criteria may be

based on historical participation. This

announcement, therefore, gives the

public notice that interested

participants should locate and preserve

records that substantiate and verify their

participation in the dogfish fishery in

Federal waters.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 17, 1998.