Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30853

1988). This recommended practice

standardizes various terms,

abbreviations, and acronyms associated

with On-board diagnostics. Vehicle

manufacturers shall comply with J1930

beginning with Model Year 2003.

(ii) For OBD vehicle communications,

vehicle manufacturers shall comply

with SAE Recommended Practice J2284,

‘‘High Speed CAN (HSC) for Vehicle

Applications at 500 KBPS.’’ (February

1999). This recommended practice

defines a level of standardization in the

implementation of a 500 KBPS vehicle

communication network using the

Controller Area Network (CAN)

protocol. Vehicle manufacturers shall

comply with J2284 beginning with

Model Year 2003.

(iii) For pass-through reprogramming

capabilities, vehicle manufacturers shall

comply with SAE Recommended

Practice J1962 (FEB 98), ‘‘Diagnostic

Connector’’. This recommended practice

specifies the boundaries within the

passenger compartment where vehicle

manufacturers may place the OBD

diagnostic link connector. Vehicle

manufacturers shall comply with J1962

beginning with model year 2003.

(iv) For pass-through reprogramming

capabilities, vehicle manufacturers shall

comply with SAE Recommended

Practice J2534 (DEC 00), ‘‘Specifications

for Pass-Through Reprogramming.’’ This

recommended practice provides

technical specifications and information

that vehicle manufacturers must supply

to aftermarket tool and equipment

companies to develop aftermarket passthrough reprogramming tools. Vehicle

manufacturers shall comply with J2534

beginning with model year 2003.

(17) Reporting Requirements.

Manufacturers shall provide to the

Administrator reports on an annual

basis and upon request of the

Administrator, that describe the

performance of their individual Web

sites. These annual reports shall be

submitted to the Administrator

electronically utilizing non-proprietary

software in the format as agreed to by

the Administrator and the

manufacturers. These annual reports

shall include, at a minimum, monthly

measurements of the following

parameters:

(i) Total successful requests. This is

measured in number of files (including

graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and

joint photographic expert group (JPEG)

images, i.e. electronic images such as

wiring or other diagrams or pictures).

This is defined as the total successful

requests counts all the files which have

been requested, including pages,

graphics, etc.

(ii) Average successful requests per

day (measured in number of files). This

is defined as reports of the average

successful requests per day of all files

which have been requested, including

pages, graphics, etc.

(iii) Total successful requests for

pages [report on number of pages

(including graphic interchange formats

(GIFs) and joint photographic expert

group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic

images such as wiring or other diagrams

or pictures). This is defined as the total

successful requests counts all the

documents that were returned or where

the document was requested but was

not needed because it had not been

recently modified and the user could

use a cached copy.

(iv) Total failed requests (measured in

number of files). This is defined as the

total failed requests counts all the files

which were requested but failed

requests because they could not be

found or is read-protected. This

includes pages, graphics, etc.

(v) Total redirected requests

(measured in number of files). This is

defined as redirected requests that

indicate that the user was directed to a

different file instead.

(vi) Number of distinct files requested

(measured in number of files). This is

defined as the number of different file

types that were requested (i.e., html,

pdf, txt).

(vii) Number of distinct hosts served

(measured in number of files). This is

defined as reports on the number of

different computers where requests have

come from.

(viii) Corrupt logfile lines (measured

in number of lines). This is defined as

the lines in the logfile that were

unreadable by the computer.

(ix) Total data transferred (measured

in bytes). This is defined as the total

amount of data transferred from one

place to another.

(x) Average data transferred per day

(measured in bytes). This is defined as

the average amount of data transferred

per day from one place to another.

(xi) Daily Summary (measured in

number of files/pages by day of week).

This is defined as the total number of

requests in each day of the week, over

the time period given at the very top of

the report.

(xii) Daily Report (measured in

number of files/pages by day of month).

This is defined as how many requests

there were in each day of a specific

month.

(xiii) Hourly Summary (measured in

number of files/pages by hour of day).

This is defined as the total number of

requests for each hour of the day, over

a specific time period.

(xiv) Request Report (measured in

number of files/pages by individual

URL). This is defined as which files

were downloaded.

(xv) Referrer Report (measured in

number of files/pages by individual

referring URL). This is defined as which

pages linked to your files.

(xvi) Browser Summary (measured in

number of files/pages by browser type,

i.e., Netscape, Internet Explorer). This is

defined as the versions of browsers by

vendor.

(xvii) Browser Report (measured in

number of files/pages by browser type,

i.e., Mozilla 4.0). This is defined as a list

of the detailed versions of browsers

used.

(18) Prohibited Acts, Liability and

Remedies. (i) It is a prohibited act for

any person to fail to promptly provide

or cause a failure to promptly provide

information as required by this

paragraph (f) or to otherwise fail to

comply or cause a failure to comply

with any provision of this paragraph (f).

(ii) Any person who fails or causes the

failure to comply with any provision of

this subsection is liable for a violation

of that provision. A corporation is

presumed liable for any violations of

this subpart that are committed by any

of its subsidiaries, affiliates or parents

that are substantially owned by it or

substantially under its control.

(iii) Any person who violates a

provision in this paragraph (f) shall be

subject to a civil penalty of not more

than $27,500 per day for each violation.

In addition, such person shall be liable

for all other remedies set forth in Title

II of the Clean Air Act, remedies

pertaining to provisions of Title II of the

Clean Air Act, or other applicable

provisions of law.

[FR Doc. 01–14471 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF96

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Establishment of

Nonessential Experimental Population

Status for 4 Fishes Into the Tellico

River, From the Backwaters of Tellico

Reservoir Upstream to Tellico River

Mile 33, in Monroe County, Tennessee

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

30854 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), propose to

reintroduce two federally listed

endangered fishes—the duskytail darter

(Etheostoma percnurum) and smoky

madtom (Noturus baileyi)—and two

federally listed threatened fishes—the

yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis)

and spotfin chub (=turquoise shiner)

(Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha)—into

the Tellico River, between the

backwaters of the Tellico Reservoir

(approximately Tellico River mile

(TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers (km))) and

TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the Tellico

Ranger Station, in Monroe County,

Tennessee. These populations would be

established as nonessential

experimental populations (NEPs) in

accordance with section 10(j) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). This area is identified as

the proposed NEP Area. We would

manage these populations under

provisions of this special rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and

information concerning this proposal to

the State Supervisor, Asheville Field

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North

Carolina 28801. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard G. Biggins at 828/258–3939, ext.

228; facsimile 828/258–5330; or e-mail

richard_biggins@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative: Congress made

significant changes to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

with the addition of section 10(j), which

provides for the designation of specific

reintroduced populations of listed

species as ‘‘experimental populations.’’

Previously, we had authority to

reintroduce populations into

unoccupied portions of a listed species’

historical range when doing so would

foster the conservation and recovery of

the species. However, local citizens

often opposed these reintroductions

because they were concerned about the

placement of restrictions and

prohibitions on Federal and private

activities. Under section 10(j), the

Secretary of the Department of the

Interior can designate reintroduced

populations established outside the

species’ current range, but within its

historical range, as ‘‘experimental.’’

Under the Act, species listed as

endangered or threatened are afforded

protection primarily through the

prohibitions of section 9 and the

requirements of section 7. Section 9 of

the Act prohibits the take of a listed

species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined by the Act as

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, trap, capture, or collect, or

attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Section 7 of the Act outlines the

procedures for Federal interagency

cooperation to conserve federally listed

species and protect designated critical

habitats. It mandates all Federal

agencies to determine how to use their

existing authorities to further the

purposes of the Act to aid in recovering

listed species. It also states that Federal

agencies will, in consultation with the

Service, insure that any action they

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of

a listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

designated critical habitat. Section 7 of

the Act does not affect activities

undertaken on private lands unless they

are authorized, funded, or carried out by

a Federal agency.

Section 10(j) is designed to increase

our flexibility in managing an

experimental population by allowing us

to treat the population as threatened,

regardless of the species’ designation

elsewhere in its range. Threatened

designation gives us more discretion in

developing and implementing

management programs and special

regulations for such a population and

allows us to develop any regulations we

consider necessary to provide for the

conservation of a threatened species. In

situations where we have experimental

populations, most of the section 9

prohibitions that apply to threatened

species no longer apply, and the special

rule contains the prohibitions and

exceptions necessary and appropriate to

conserve that species. Regulations for

NEPs may be developed to be more

compatible with routine human

activities in the reintroduction area.

Based on the best available

information, we must determine

whether experimental populations are

‘‘essential,’’ or ‘‘nonessential,’’ to the

continued existence of the species. An

experimental population that is

essential to the survival of the species

is treated as a threatened species. An

experimental population that is

nonessential to the survival of the

species is also treated as a threatened

species. However, for section 7

interagency cooperation purposes, if the

NEP is located outside of a National

Wildlife Refuge or National Park, it is

treated as a species proposed for listing.

For the purposes of section 7 of the

Act, in situations where there is a

nonessential experimental population

located within a National Wildlife

Refuge or National Park (treated as

threatened), section 7(a)(1) and the

consultation requirements of section

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. Section

7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to

use their authorities to conserve listed

species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that

Federal agencies consult with the

Service before authorizing, funding, or

carrying out any activity that would

likely jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or adversely

modify its critical habitats. When NEPs

are located outside a National Wildlife

Refuge or National Park, only two

provisions of section 7 would apply;

section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). In

these instances, NEPs provide

additional flexibility because Federal

agencies are not required to consult

with us under section 7(a)(2). Section

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to

informally confer with the Service on

actions that are likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed

species. However, since we determined

that the NEP is not essential to the

continued existence of the species, it is

very unlikely that we would ever

determine jeopardy for a project

impacting a species within an NEP.

Individuals used to establish an

experimental population may come

from a donor population, provided their

removal is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, and

appropriate permits are issued in

accordance with our regulations (50

CFR 17.22) prior to their removal.

2. Biological: Since the mid-1980s,

Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (CFI), with

support from us, the Tennessee Wildlife

Resources Agency (TWRA), U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), National Park Service,

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and

Tennessee Aquarium (TA), has

reintroduced the smoky madtom,

duskytail darter, yellowfin madtom, and

spotfin chub into Abrams Creek, within

the Great Smoky Mountains National

Park, Blount County, Tennessee. We

have evidence that all four species are

becoming reestablished in Abrams

Creek (Rakes et al. 1998). Based on this

success and CFI’s intimate knowledge of

the fishes’ habitat needs, we contracted

them to survey the Tellico River to

determine if we could expand the

recovery program for these fishes into

the Tellico River.

CFI determined that the Tellico River

appears to contain ideal habitat for the

reintroduction of the four fishes,

between the backwaters of the Tellico

Reservoir (approximately Tellico River

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30855

mile (TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers (km)))

and TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the Tellico

Ranger Station, in Monroe County,

Tennessee (Rakes and Shute 1998). CFI

concluded that the Tellico River’s

overall water quality and clarity,

combined with substrate quality, were

somewhat less optimal than Citico

Creek, where three of the four species

currently exist. However, they also

concluded that the Tellico River

contains as good or better habitat than

that which exists in Abrams Creek,

where reintroductions of all four species

are apparently succeeding.

Rakes and Shute (1998) reported that

there are no confirmed historical

collection records for these fishes from

the Tellico River. However, they believe

that all four species probably occurred

in the river historically. They based

their conclusion on two facts—(1) That

the Tellico River is a Little Tennessee

tributary just downstream from the

mouths of Abrams and Citico Creeks (all

four fishes historically occurred in these

creeks) and (2) that all three streams

drain the same physiographic provinces

(Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley).

Additionally, all four species

historically had access to the Tellico

River. Prior to the construction of

reservoirs on the main stem of the Little

Tennessee River, no physical barriers

prevented the movement of these fishes

among Abrams Creek, Citico Creek, and

the Tellico River (Peggy Shute, TVA,

personal communication, 1998).

3. Recovery Efforts: We listed the

duskytail darter (Etheostoma

percnurum) (Jenkins 1994) as an

endangered species on April 27, 1993

(58 FR 25758), and completed the

recovery plan for this species in March

1994 (Service 1994). Although likely

once more widespread in the upper

Tennessee and middle Cumberland

River systems, the species was

historically known from only six

populations—Little River and Abrams

Creek, Blount County, Tennessee; Citico

Creek, Monroe County, Tennessee; Big

South Fork Cumberland River, Scott

County, Tennessee, and McCreary

County, Kentucky; Copper Creek and

the Clinch River (this is one

population), Scott County, Virginia; and

the South Fork Holston River, Sullivan

County, Virginia (Service 1994). The

South Fork Holston River population is

apparently extirpated. The Little River,

Copper Creek/Clinch River, and Big

South Fork Cumberland River

populations are extant but small. CFI

has reintroduced the duskytail darter

into Abrams Creek, where a population

is apparently becoming reestablished

(Rakes et al. 1998).

The downlisting criteria

(reclassification from endangered to

threatened status) in the Duskytail

Darter Recovery Plan are: (1) Protect and

enhance existing populations and

reestablish a population so that at least

three distinct viable duskytail darter

populations exist, (2) complete studies

of the species’ biological and ecological

requirements, (3) develop management

strategies from these studies that are or

are likely to be successful, and (4)

ensure that no foreseeable threats exist

which would likely threaten the

continued existence of the three

aforementioned viable populations. The

delisting criteria in the recovery plan

are: (1) Protect and enhance existing

populations and reestablish populations

so that at least five distinct viable

duskytail darter populations exist, (2)

complete studies of the species’

biological and ecological requirements,

(3) develop management strategies from

these studies that are or are likely to be

successful, and (4) ensure that no

foreseeable threats exist which would

likely threaten the continued existence

of the five aforementioned viable

populations.

We listed the smoky madtom

(Noturus baileyi) (Taylor 1969) as an

endangered species on October 26, 1984

(49 FR 43065), and finalized the

recovery plan for this species in August

1985 (Service 1985). Although once

probably more widespread in tributaries

to the lower Little Tennessee River

system, this species was historically

collected from only two creeks—Abrams

Creek, Blount County, Tennessee, and

Citico Creek, Monroe County, Tennessee

(Service 1985). The Citico Creek

population is still extant. CFI has

reintroduced smoky madtom into

Abrams Creek, and a population is

apparently becoming reestablished

(Rakes et al. 1998).

The downlisting criteria in the Smoky

Madtom Recovery Plan are: (1) Protect

the existing Citico Creek population and

reintroduce the species into Abrams

Creek so that at least two distinct viable

smoky madtom populations exist and

(2) eliminate threats to the species by

implementing management activities.

The delisting criteria in the recovery

plan are to: (1) Protect and enhance

existing populations and reestablish

populations so that at least four distinct

viable smoky madtom populations

(Abrams and Citico Creeks, plus two

others) exist; (2) implement successful

management plans for the populations

in Abrams and Citico Creeks; and (3)

protect all four populations and their

habitat from present and foreseeable

threats that could interfere with the

survival of any of the populations.

We listed the yellowfin madtom

(Noturus flavipinnis) (Taylor 1969) as a

threatened species on September 9,

1977 (42 FR 45527), and finalized the

recovery plan for this species in June

1983 (Service 1983a). This fish was

probably once widely distributed in the

Tennessee drainage, from the

Chickamauga system upstream (Service

1983a). However, the yellowfin madtom

was historically known from only six

streams—South Chickamauga Creek,

Catoosa County, Georgia; Hines Creek, a

Clinch River tributary, Anderson

County, Tennessee; North Fork Holston

River, Smyth County, Virginia; Copper

Creek, Scott and Russell Counties,

Virginia; Powell River, Hancock County,

Tennessee; and Citico Creek, Monroe

County, Tennessee (Service 1983a).

Although there are no historical

yellowfin madtom records from Abrams

Creek, Blount County, Tennessee,

Lennon and Parker (1959) reported that

the brindled madtom (the name given

by early collectors for the yellowfin)

was collected during a reclamation

project of lower Abrams Creek in 1957.

Based on this observation, Dinkins and

Shute (1996) and others believe the

species once occurred in the middle and

lower reaches of Abrams Creek. Three

small populations still persist—Citico

Creek, Copper Creek, and the Powell

River. CFI has reintroduced the species

into Abrams Creek, and a population is

apparently becoming reestablished

(Rakes et al. 1998).

The delisting criteria in the Yellowfin

Madtom Recovery Plan are to: (1)

Protect and enhance existing

populations and/or reestablish

populations so viable populations exist

in Copper Creek, Citico Creek, and the

Powell River; (2) recreate and/or

discover two additional viable

populations; (3) ensure that noticeable

improvements in coal-related problems

and substrate quality exist in the Powell

River; and (4) protect the species and its

habitat in all five rivers from present

and foreseeable threats that may

adversely affect essential habitat or the

survival of any of the populations.

We listed the spotfin chub (=turquoise

shiner) (Cyprinella (=Hybopsis)

monacha) (Cope 1868) as a threatened

species on September 9, 1977 (42 FR

45527), and finalized the recovery plan

for this species in November 1983

(Service 1983b). This once widespread

species was historically known from 24

streams in the upper and middle

Tennessee River system. It is now extant

in only four rivers/river systems—the

Buffalo River at the mouth of Grinders

Creek, Lewis County, Tennessee; Little

Tennessee River, Swain and Macon

Counties, North Carolina; Emory River

30856 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

system (Obed River, Clear Creek, and

Daddys Creek) Cumberland and Morgan

Counties, Tennessee; Holston River and

its tributary, the North Fork Holston

River, Hawkins and Sullivan Counties,

Tennessee, and Scott and Washington

Counties, Virginia (Service 1983b; P.

Shute, TVA, personal communication,

1998). CFI has reintroduced the species

into Abrams Creek, and there are

indications that it may become

reestablished (Rakes et al. 1998).

The delisting criteria in the Spotfin

Chub Recovery Plan are to: (1) Protect

and enhance existing populations and/

or reestablish populations so that viable

populations exist in the Buffalo River

system, upper Little Tennessee River,

Emory River system, and lower North

Fork Holston River and (2) ensure,

through reintroductions and/or the

discovery of new populations, that two

other viable populations exist.

The recovery criteria for all four of

these fishes generally agree that, to

reach recovery, we must: (1) Restore

existing populations to viable levels, (2)

reestablish viable populations in

historical habitats, and (3) eliminate

foreseeable threats that would likely

threaten the continued existence of any

viable populations. The number of

secure, viable populations (existing and

restored) that are needed to achieve

recovery varies by species and depends

on the extent of the species’ probable

historical range (i.e., species that were

once widespread require a greater

number of populations for recovery than

species that were historically more

restricted in distribution). However, the

reestablishment of historical

populations is a critical component to

the recovery of all four species.

4. Reintroduction Site: In March 1998,

the Executive Director of the TWRA

stated that he supports the conclusions

of Rakes and Shute (1998), and

requested that we consider designating

the Tellico River a NEP Area and

reintroducing the four fishes. He further

stated that (1) the Tellico River was the

probable historical habitat of the

duskytail darter, smoky madtom,

yellowfin madtom, and spotfin chub;

and (2) the Tellico River appeared to

have almost ideal habitat for the

reintroduction of all four fishes.

Dr. David Etnier, Department of

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

Tennessee, stated in April 1998, that he

supports the reintroduction of the four

species into the Tellico River. Dr. Etnier

presented several reasons for his

support: (1) The mouth of the Tellico

River is approximately 10 miles (16 km)

downstream of the mouth of Citico

Creek, which historically supported all

four species and currently supports all

but the spotfin chub; (2) CFI’s habitat

analysis indicated that reintroductions

of these fishes into the Tellico River

have a greater potential for success than

reintroductions into any other tributary

of the Little Tennessee River system,

except Abrams Creek, where apparently

successful reintroductions are already

occurring; (3) apparently, no fish

collections were made from the Tellico

River prior to the 1960s, so the

extirpation of these fishes could have

occurred prior to the 1960s due to

siltation caused by heavy logging in the

watershed around the turn of the

century; and (4) none of these species

displays any biological attributes that

suggest they could become a problem if

successfully established into the Tellico

River.

We propose to reintroduce

populations of the duskytail darter,

smoky madtom, yellowfin madtom, and

spotfin chub (=turquoise shiner) into the

Tellico River, between the backwaters of

the Tellico Reservoir (approximately

Tellico River mile (TRM) 19 (30.4

kilometers (km))) and TRM 33 (52.8

km), near the Tellico Ranger Station, in

Monroe County, Tennessee and to

designate these populations as NEPs.

This area is identified as the proposed

NEP Area.

5. Reintroduction Procedures: At this

time, we cannot determine the proposed

dates for these reintroductions, the

specific sites where the fish species will

be released, and the actual number of

individuals to be released. We will

release primarily artificially propagated

juveniles, but we could release some

wild adult stock. Propagation and

juvenile rearing technology is available

for the spotfin chub and the duskytail

darter. Limited numbers of smoky and

yellowfin madtom juveniles can be

reared using eggs and larvae taken from

the wild. However, madtom artificial

propagation technology, which is

needed to produce large numbers of

juvenile madtoms, will likely not be

available for 2 to 3 years.

The parents of the juveniles

reintroduced into the NEP Area will

come from existing wild populations.

The two madtoms and duskytail darters

will come from a nearby Little

Tennessee River tributary—Citico Creek,

Monroe County, Tennessee. The spotfin

chubs will come from upstream in the

Little Tennessee River, Swain County,

North Carolina. In some cases the

parents will be returned to the wild

population from which they were taken.

However, in most cases the parents will

be permanently relocated to propagation

facilities.

Status of Reintroduced Populations

We determine that these proposed

reintroduced fish populations are not

essential to the continued existence of

the species. Therefore, we believe it is

appropriate to designate these

populations as nonessential in

accordance with section 10(j) of the Act.

We will ensure, through our section 10

permit authority and the section 7

consultation process, that the use of

animals from any donor population for

these reintroductions is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

the species. Therefore, if any of the

reintroduced populations become

established and are subsequently lost, it

would not reduce the likelihood of the

species’ survival in the wild or

jeopardize its continued existence. In

fact, the anticipated success of these

reintroductions will enhance the

conservation and recovery potential of

these species by extending their present

ranges into currently unoccupied

historic habitat. These species are not

known to exist in the Tellico River or

its tributaries at the present time.

Location of Reintroduced Populations

Sites for the proposed reintroduction

of these four fish species into the Tellico

River, Monroe County, Tennessee, are

within the proposed NEP Area. This

area is totally isolated from existing

populations of these species by large

reservoirs, and none of these fishes are

known to occur or move through large

reservoir habitat. Therefore, these

reservoirs will act as barriers to the

downstream expansion of these species

into the main stem of the Little

Tennessee River and its tributaries and

ensure that these populations will

remain geographically isolated.

Management

We do not believe these

reintroductions will conflict with

existing or proposed human activities or

hinder public utilization of the NEP

Area. Experimental population special

rules contain all the prohibitions and

exceptions regarding the taking of

individual animals. These special rules

are more compatible with routine

human activities in the reintroduction

area.

Based on the habitat requirements of

these four fishes, we do not expect them

to become established outside the NEP

Area. However, if any of the four species

move upstream or downstream or into

tributaries outside of the designated

NEP Area, we would presume that the

animals had come from the

reintroduced populations. The rule will

be amended and the boundaries of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30857

NEP Area would be enlarged to include

the entire range of the expanded

population.

Preliminary Notification and Comment

On June 26, 1998, we mailed letters to

67 potentially affected congressional

offices, Federal and State agencies, local

governments, and interested parties that

we were considering proposing NEP

status for four fish species in the Tellico

River. We received four written

responses.

The U.S. Forest Service, which is

significantly involved in reintroduction

efforts for these fishes into Abrams

Creek, supports proposed

reintroductions into the Tellico River as

NEPs and offered to cooperate with us

and TWRA in the reintroductions.

The Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation,

Division of Natural Heritage, supports

the reintroduction of the four fishes into

the Tellico River. They believe that

designating the reintroduced

populations as NEPs is appropriate

because it should enable Federal, State,

and local authorities to continue to

promote the conservation and recovery

of these fishes.

The Tennessee Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society supports the

reintroduction of these fishes into the

Tellico River under NEP status. They

concluded that: (1) Although there is

little information on the historical

environmental conditions in the Tellico

River, the river now supports a

relatively healthy native fish

community with respect to species

diversity, species composition, fish

abundance, and fish health; (2) the river

appears to contain suitable habitat for

the survival of all four species; (3) all

four species probably historically

occupied the river; and (4) designating

reintroductions as NEPs greatly relaxes

regulatory requirements and makes

introduced populations more

compatible with other resource use in

the watershed.

The Southeast Aquatic Research

Institute (SARI) fully supports these

reintroductions.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend for any rule that is finally

adopted to be as effective as possible.

Therefore, we invite the public,

concerned government agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and

other interested parties to submit

comments or recommendations

concerning any aspect of this proposed

rule (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law. In

some circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish for us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. We will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses available for public

inspection in their entirety.

Public Hearings

You may request a public hearing on

this proposal. Your request for a hearing

must be made in writing and filed

within 45 days of the date of publication

of the proposal in the Federal Register.

Such requests for a hearing must be

addressed to the State Supervisor for the

Fish and Wildlife Service in North

Carolina (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant rule and

is not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

Executive Order 12866. This rule will

not have an effect of $100 million or

more on the economy. It will not

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. The area

affected by this rule consists of a very

limited and discrete geographic segment

(only 14 river miles (22.4 km)) of the

Tellico River in Monroe County,

Tennessee. No significant impacts to

existing human activities on the river as

a result of this rule are expected.

This rule will not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency. Designating

reintroduced populations of federally

listed species as NEPs significantly

reduces the Act’s regulatory

requirements regarding the reintroduced

listed species. Because of the substantial

regulatory relief, we do not believe the

reintroduction of these fishes will

conflict with existing or proposed

human activities or hinder public use of

the Tellico River.

This rule does not alter the budgetary

effects or entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of their recipients. Because

there are no expected impacts or

restrictions to existing human uses of

the Tellico River as a result of this rule,

no entitlements, grants, user fees, loan

programs, or the rights and obligations

of their recipients are expected to occur.

This rule does not raise novel legal or

policy issues. We have previously

promulgated section 10(j) rules for

experimental populations of other listed

threatened or endangered species in

various localities since 1984. The rules

are designed to reduce the regulatory

burden that would otherwise exist when

reintroducing listed species to the wild.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that this document will not

have a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Although most, if

not all, of the identified entities are

small businesses engaged in activities

along the affected reach of the stream,

this rule will have no economic effect in

that it will operate to reduce or remove

regulatory restrictions (see above for

discussion of expected impacts).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule does not have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or more

on local or State governments or private

entities. This rule will not cause a major

increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions. This

rule does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

The intent of this special rule is to

facilitate and continue the existing

commercial activity, while providing for

the conservation of species through

reintroduction into suitable habitat.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. The

rule does not have a significant or

unique effect on State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector. The

TWRA, which manages the fishes in the

Tellico River, requested that we

consider this reintroduction under an

NEP designation. However, this rule

will not require the TWRA to

specifically manage for any of these

reintroduced species. A statement

30858 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

containing the information required by

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. When

reintroduced populations of federally

listed species are designated as NEPs,

the Act’s regulatory requirements

regarding the reintroduced listed

species within the NEP are significantly

reduced. Section 10(j) of the Act can

provide regulatory relief with regard to

the taking of reintroduced species

within a NEP area. For example, this

rule allows for the unavoidable and

unintentional taking of these

reintroduced fishes when such take is

incidental to a legal activity (e.g.,

boating, wading, and fishing) and the

activity is in accordance with State laws

or regulations. Because of the

substantial regulatory relief provided by

NEP designations, we do not believe the

reintroduction of these fishes will

conflict with existing or proposed

human activities or hinder public use of

the Tellico River system. A takings

implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13732)

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, in the

relationship between the Federal

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. We have

coordinated extensively with the State

of Tennessee on the proposed

reintroduction of fish to the Tellico

River. We are undertaking this

rulemaking at the request of the State

wildlife agency (TWRA) in order to

assist the State in restoring and

recovering its native aquatic fauna.

Achieving the recovery goals for these

four fish species will contribute to the

eventual delisting of these species and,

thus, the return of these species to State

management. We do not expect any

intrusion on State policy or

administration; roles or responsibilities

of Federal or State governments will not

change; and fiscal capacity will not be

substantially directly affected. This

special rule operates to maintain the

existing relationship between the States

and the Federal Government and is

being undertaken at the request of a

State agency. We have endeavored to

cooperate with the TWRA in the

preparation of this proposed rule.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order

12988)

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Department of the Interior

has determined that this proposed rule

does not unduly burden the judicial

system and meets the applicable

standards provided in sections (3)(a)

and (3)(b)(2) of the order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not require an

information collection from 10 or more

parties and a submission under the

Paperwork Reduction Act is not

required.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. A

detailed statement under the National

Environmental Policy Act is not

required. We have determined that the

issuance of a proposed rule for these

NEPs is categorically excluded under

our NEPA procedures (516 DM 6,

Appendix 1.4 B (6)).

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

description of the rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the rule? (6) What else could we do to

make the rule easier to understand?

Send your comments concerning how

we could make this rule easier to

understand to: Office of Regulatory

Affairs, Department of the Interior,

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20240 (e-mail:

Exsec@ios.doi.gov).

Literature Cited

Dinkins, G.R., and P.W. Shute. 1996. Life

history of Noturus baileyi and N.

flavipinnis (Pisces: Ictaluridae), two rare

madtom catfishes in Citico Creek, Monroe

County, Tennessee. Bull. Alabama. Mus.

Nat. His. 18:43–69.

Lennon, R.E., and P.S. Parker. 1959. The

reclamation of Indian and Abrams Creeks,

Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scientific

Report 306. 22 pp.

Rakes, P.L., and J.R. Shute. 1998. Results of

an assay of portions of the Tellico and

Hiwassee Rivers for suitable habitat to

support reintroductions of rare fish.

January 23, 1998, unpublished report

prepared by Conservation Fisheries, Inc.,

Knoxville, Tennessee, for U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Asheville, North

Carolina. 14 pp.

Rakes, P.L., P.W. Shute, and J.R. Shute. 1998.

Captive propagation and population

monitoring of rare Southeastern fishes.

Final Report for 1997. Field Season and

Second Quarter Report for Fiscal Year

1998, prepared for Tennessee Wildlife

Resources Agency, Contract No. FA–4–

10792–5–00. 32 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a.

Yellowfin Madtom Recovery Plan. Atlanta,

GA. 33 pp.

lll1983b. Spotfin Chub Recovery Plan.

Atlanta, GA. 46 pp.

lll1985. Smoky Madtom Recovery Plan.

Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.

lll1994. Duskytail Darter Recovery Plan.

Atlanta, GA. 25 pp.

Author

The principal author of this proposed

rule is Richard G. Biggins (see

ADDRESSES section).

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 amend

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

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

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h), revise entries in the

table under FISHES for ‘‘Chub, spotfin’’;

‘‘Darter, duskytail’’; ‘‘Madtom, smoky’’;

and ‘‘Madtom, yellowfin’’; to read as

follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30859

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

FISHES

*******

Chub, spotfin

(=turquoise shiner).

Cyprinella

(=Hybopsis)

monacha.

U.S.A. (AL, GA, NC,

TN, VA).

Entire, except where listed as an experimental

population.

T 28 17.95(e) 17.44(c)

Do ............................ ......do ...................... ......do ...................... Tellico River, from the

backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir

(about Tellico River

mile 19 (30.4 km)) upstream to Tellico River

mile 33 (52.8 km), in

Monroe County, TN.

XN .................... NA 17.84(m)

*******

Darter, duskytail ...... Etheostoma

percnurum.

U.S.A. (TN, VA) ...... Entire, except where listed as an experimental

population.

E 502 NA NA

Do ............................ ......do ...................... ......do ...................... Tellico River, from the

backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir

(about Tellico River

mile 19 (30.4 km)) upstream to Tellico River

mile 33 (52.8 km), in

Monroe County, TN.

XN .................... NA 17.84(m)

*******

Madtom, smoky ....... Noturus baileyi ........ U.S.A. (TN) ............. Entire, except where listed as an experimental

population.

E 163 17.95(e) NA

Do ............................ ......do ...................... ......do ...................... Tellico River, from the

backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir

(about Tellico River

mile 19 (30.4 km)) upstream to Tellico River

mile 33 (52.8 km), in

Monroe County, TN.

XN .................... NA 17.84(m)

Madtom, yellowfin ... Noturus flavipinnis ... U.S.A. (TN, VA) ...... Entire, except where listed as an experimental

population.

T 28,317 17.95(e) 17.44(c)

Do ............................ ......do ...................... ......do ...................... N. Fork Holston River

Watershed, VA, TN; S.

Fork Holston R., upstream to Ft. Patrick

Henry Dam, TN;

Holston R. downstream to John Sevier

Detention Lake Dam,

TN; and all tributaries

thereto.

XN 317 NA 17.84(e)

Do ............................ ......do ...................... ......do ...................... Tellico River, from the

backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir

(about Tellico River

mile 19 (30.4 km)) upstream to Tellico River

mile 33 (52.8 km), in

Monroe County, TN.

XN .................... NA 17.84(e)

*******

3. Revise § 17.84(e) to read as follows:

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates.

* * * * *

(e) Yellowfin madtom (Noturus

flavipinnis).

(1) Where is the yellowfin madtom

designated as a nonessential

experimental population (NEP)?

30860 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(i) The North Fork Holston River

Watershed NEP Area is within the

species’ historic range and is defined as

follows: The North Fork Holston River

watershed, Washington, Smyth, and

Scott Counties, Virginia; South Fork

Holston River watershed upstream to Ft.

Patrick Henry Dam, Sullivan County,

Tennessee; and the Holston River from

the confluence of the North and South

Forks downstream to the John Sevier

Detention Lake Dam, Hawkins County,

Tennessee. This site is totally isolated

from existing populations of this species

by large Tennessee River tributaries and

reservoirs. As the species is not known

to inhabit reservoirs, and it is unlikely

that the fish could move 100 river miles

through these large reservoirs, the

possibility of this population contacting

extant wild populations is unlikely.

(ii) The Tellico River NEP Area is

within the species’ historic range and is

defined as follows: The Tellico River,

between the backwaters of the Tellico

Reservoir (approximately Tellico River

mile (TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers (km)))

and TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the Tellico

Ranger Station, in Monroe County,

Tennessee. This species is not currently

known to exist in the Tellico River or

its tributaries. Based on the habitat

requirements of this species, we do not

expect the fish to become established

outside this NEP Area. However, if they

do move upstream or downstream or

into tributaries outside of the designated

NEP Area, we will presume that the fish

came from the reintroduced

populations. We will amend this rule

and enlarge the boundaries of the NEP

Area to include the entire range of the

expanded population.

(iii) We do not intend to change the

NEP designations to ‘‘essential

experimental,’’ ‘‘threatened,’’ or

‘‘endangered’’ within the NEP Areas.

Additionally, we will not designate

critical habitat for these NEPs, as

provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).

(2) What activities are not allowed in

the NEP Area?

(i) Except as expressly allowed in this

paragraph (e), all the prohibitions of

§ 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the fish

identified in this paragraph.

(ii) Any manner of take not described

under paragraph (e)(3) of this section is

prohibited in the NEP Area. We may

refer unauthorized take of these species

to the appropriate authorities for

prosecution.

(iii) You may not possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever any of

the identified fish, or parts thereof, that

are taken or possessed in violation of

this paragraph or in violation of the

applicable State fish and wildlife laws

or regulations or the Act.

(iv) You may not attempt to commit,

solicit another to commit, or cause to be

committed any offense defined in this

paragraph.

(3) What take is allowed in the NEP

Area? Take of this species that is

accidental and incidental to an

otherwise lawful activity, such as

fishing, boating, trapping, wading, or

swimming, is allowed.

(4) How will the effectiveness of these

reintroductions be monitored? We will

prepare periodic progress reports and

fully evaluate these reintroduction

efforts after 5 and 10 years to determine

whether to continue or terminate the

reintroduction efforts.

* * * * *

4. Amend § 17.84 by adding

paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates.

* * * * *

(m) Spotfin chub (=turquoise shiner)

(Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha),

duskytail darter (Etheostoma

percnurum), smoky madtom (Noturus

baileyi).

(1) Where are these fish designated as

nonessential experimental populations

(NEPs)?

(i) The NEP Area for the three fishes

is within the species’ probable historic

ranges and is defined as follows: The

Tellico River, from the backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir (approximately Tellico

River mile (TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers

(km))) to TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the

Tellico Ranger Station, in Monroe

County, Tennessee.

(ii) None of the fish named in this

paragraph (m) are currently known to

exist in the Tellico River or its

tributaries. Based on the habitat

requirements of these fish, we do not

expect them to become established

outside the NEP Area. However, if any

of the species move upstream or

downstream or into tributaries outside

of the designated NEP Area, we will

presume that the fish came from the

reintroduced populations. We will

amend this paragraph and enlarge the

boundaries of the NEP Area to include

the entire range of the expanded

population.

(iii) We do not intend to change the

NEP designations to ‘‘essential

experimental,’’ ‘‘threatened,’’ or

‘‘endangered’’ within the NEP Area.

Additionally, we will not designate

critical habitat for these NEPs, as

provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).

(2) What activities are not allowed in

the NEP Area?

(i) Except as expressly allowed in this

paragraph, all the prohibitions of

§ 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the fish

identified in this paragraph.

(ii) Any manner of take not described

under paragraph (m)(3) of this section is

prohibited in the NEP Area. We may

refer unauthorized take of these species

to the appropriate authorities for

prosecution.

(iii) You may not possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever any of

the identified fish, or parts thereof, that

are taken or possessed in violation of

this paragraph or in violation of the

applicable State fish and wildlife laws

or regulations or the Act.

(iv) You may not attempt to commit,

solicit another to commit, or cause to be

committed any offense defined in this

paragraph.

(3) What take is allowed in the NEP

Area? Take of these species that is

accidental and incidental to an

otherwise lawful activity, such as

fishing, boating, trapping, wading, or

swimming, is allowed.

(4) How will the effectiveness of these

reintroductions be monitored? We will

prepare periodic progress reports and

fully evaluate these reintroduction

efforts after 5 and 10 years to determine

whether to continue or terminate the

reintroduction efforts.

Dated: March 20, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–14454 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH56

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove

Potentilla robbinsiana (Robbins’

cinquefoil) From the Endangered and

Threatened Plant List

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

remove Potentilla robbinsiana,

commonly called Robbins’ cinquefoil,

from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Plants. We propose this

action because the available data

indicate that this species has met the

goals for delisting. The main population

of the species currently has more than

14,000 plants, and the 2 transplant