46860 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced 

elevation ** 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground 

Communities 

affected 

Effective Modified 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Cornell 

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 222 Main Street, Cornell, WI 54732. 

Unincorporated Areas of Chippewa County 

Maps are available for inspection at Clerk’s Office, 711 North Bridge Street, Room 109, Chippewa Falls, WI 54729. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Federal Insurance Administrator of the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E8–18529 Filed 8–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 260 

[Docket No. FRA–2008–0061] 

RIN 2130–AB91 

Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing Program 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NRPM); extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On June 9, 2008, FRA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 32515) proposing 

amending the eligibility and application 

form and content criteria of the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing (RRIF) Program to ensure the 

long-term sustainability of the program, 

promote competition in the railroad 

industry, and reduce the risk of default 

for applicants and the Government. Due 

to an administrative error, a Preliminary 

Regulatory Evaluation (Evaluation) was 

not included in the docket. This notice 

announces an extension of the comment 

period until August 26, 2008 to allow 

for consideration of the Evaluation. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 26, 2008. Comments received 

after that date will be considered to the 

extent possible without incurring 

additional expense or delay. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

Docket No. FRA–2008–0061 and may be 

submitted the following ways: 

• E-Gov Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This Web site 

allows the public to enter comments on 

any Federal Register notice issued by 

any agency. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: DOT Docket Management 

System: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket 

Management System; West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket ID, FRA–2008–0061, at the 

beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, submit 

two copies. To receive confirmation that 

FRA received your comments, include a 

self-addressed stamped postcard. 

Internet users may submit comments at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Note: Comments are posted without 

changes or edits to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided. There is a privacy 

statement published on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kern, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(John.Kern@dot.gov or 202–493–6044). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available under the 

help section of the Web site. 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded from Office of 

the Federal Register’s home page at 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register 

and the Government Printing Office’s 

Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 

2008. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–18710 Filed 8–8–08; 12:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2007–0006; 92210–1117–

0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AU93 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 

Species of Picture-wing Flies From the 

Hawaiian Islands 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, notice of availability 

of draft economic analysis, and 

amended required determinations. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 46861 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on the 

revised proposed designation of critical 

habitat for 12 species of Hawaiian 

picture-wing flies (Drosophila aglaia, D. 

differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, 

D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. 

musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, 

D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. 

tarphytrichia) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the revised 

proposed rule, the associated DEA, and 

the amended required determinations 

section. If you submitted comments 

previously, you do not need to resubmit 

them because we have already 

incorporated them into the public 

record and will fully consider them in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 11, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–

AV91; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. 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: 

Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, 

P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; 

telephone 808–792–9400; facsimile 

808–792–9581. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our revised 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly 

species that was published in the 

Federal Register on November 28, 2007 

(72 FR 67428), the June 2008 DEA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for the 

Hawaiian Picture-wing Flies, and this 

document, including the amended 

required determinations provided in 

this document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as critical 

habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 

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

the benefit of designation would 

outweigh threats to the species caused 

by the designation, such that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

prudent; 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

habitat for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing 

fly species; 

(b) What areas occupied at the time of 

listing contain features essential for the 

conservation of the species we should 

include in the designation and why, and 

(c) Which areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on the 

proposed critical habitat. 

(4) Information on the extent to which 

any State and local environmental 

protection measures we reference in the 

DEA may have been adopted largely as 

a result of the species’ listing. 

(5) Information on whether the DEA 

identifies all State and local costs and 

benefits attributable to the proposed 

critical habitat designation, and 

information on any costs and benefits 

that we have overlooked. 

(6) Information on whether the DEA 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and any 

regulatory changes that are likely to 

occur if we designate critical habitat as 

currently proposed. 

(7) Information on whether the DEA 

identifies all costs and benefits that 

could result from the designation. 

(8) Information on whether the DEA 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs or benefits associated with any 

land use controls that may result from 

the proposed designation. 

(9) The extent to which the 

description in the DEA of economic 

impacts to public land management and 

other activities is complete and 

accurate. 

(10) Information on areas that the 

critical habitat designation could 

potentially impact to a disproportionate 

degree. 

(11) Economic data on the 

incremental costs of designating any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

(12) Information on any quantifiable 

economic or other potential benefits of 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. Factors which may be 

considered under the potential benefits 

of critical habitat designation may 

include, but are not limited to, aesthetic 

considerations, recreational use, 

biodiversity, aquatic resources, intrinsic 

values, and benefits to local 

communities. 

(13) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation, and in particular, 

any impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. Other 

impacts in addition to economic effects 

that may be considered in the 

designation of critical habitat may 

include, but are not limited to, social 

factors, ecological factors, and impacts 

on local communities. 

(14) Whether the benefits of excluding 

any particular area from critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area as critical habitat under section 

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

potential impacts and benefits of the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

(15) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat to provide for greater 

public participation and understanding, 

or to better accommodate public 

concerns and comments. 

If you submitted comments or 

information during the initial comment 

period from November 28, 2007, to 

January 28, 2008, on the proposed rule 

(72 FR 67427), please do not resubmit 

them. We will incorporate them into the 

public record as part of this comment 

period, and we will fully consider them 

in preparation of our final 

determination. Our final determination 

concerning revised proposed critical 

habitat will take into consideration all 

written comments and any additional 

information we receive during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comments, we may, during the 

development of our final determination, 

find that areas proposed are not 

essential, and are appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning our proposed rule, 

the associated DEA, and our amended 

required determinations by one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider comments 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
46862 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this notice, 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, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule and DEA by mail from the 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT), by visiting the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or on our 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacificislands. 

Background 

Under the terms of a settlement 

agreement approved by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Hawaii on 

August 31, 2005 (CBD v. Allen, CV–05–

274–HA), we were to (1) make a final 

listing decision for the 12 picture-wing 

flies by May 6, 2006; (2) propose to 

designate critical habitat by September 

15, 2006; and (3) finalize a critical 

habitat rule by April 17, 2007. A joint 

stipulation was approved by the Court 

on April 18, 2007, to allow additional 

time to reconsider the proposed rule in 

light of comments received to the 

August 15, 2006, proposed designation 

of approximately 18 acres as critical 

habitat for 11 of the 12 species of 

Hawaiian picture-wing flies (71 FR 

46944), and to provide an opportunity 

for additional public comment. Under 

the terms of the extension, we were 

required to submit a proposed critical 

habitat rule to the Federal Register by 

November 15, 2007, and a final critical 

habitat rule by November 15, 2008. 

On November 28, 2007, we published 

a revised proposed designation of 

approximately 9,238 acres (ac) (3,738 

hectares (ha)) as critical habitat in four 

counties (City and County of Honolulu, 

Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai), in Hawaii in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 67427). For 

additional information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the 12 

species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies 

for which we are proposing to designate 

critical habitat, refer to the November 

28, 2007, proposed revised designation 

of critical habitat and the final listing 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26835). 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat in this 

notice. For more information on the 

taxonomy and biology of the 12 species 

of Hawaiian picture-wing flies, refer to 

the final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 

26835), and the revised proposed 

critical habitat rule published in the 

Federal Register on November 28, 2007 

(72 FR 67428). 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as: (1) The specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, on which are found 

those physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat by any activity 

funded, authorized, or carried out by 

any Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions that may affect areas 

designated as critical habitat must 

consult with us on the effects of their 

proposed actions, pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, or any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

have prepared a DEA of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation 

based on our November 28, 2007, 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for 12 species of Hawaiian 

picture-wing flies. We request comment 

on the accuracy of our methodology for 

distinguishing baseline and incremental 

costs, the assumptions underlying it, 

and alternate methodologies that may 

merit consideration. 

The purpose of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 12 

Hawaiian picture-wing fly species. The 

DEA quantifies the economic impacts of 

all potential conservation efforts for the 

12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species; 

some of these costs will likely be 

incurred regardless of whether we 

designate critical habitat. The economic 

impact of the proposed critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

two types of impacts: (1) Baseline 

impacts are those that would occur with 

or without designation of critical 

habitat, and (2) incremental impacts are 

those that would occur only with 

critical habitat designation. Baseline 

impacts represent the costs incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. Incremental impacts 

represent the costs incurred specifically 

with the designation of critical habitat 

for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

picture-wing flies that are above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we may consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 12 

Hawaiian picture-wing fly species were 

listed, and forecasts both baseline and 

incremental impacts likely to occur after 

the proposed critical habitat is finalized. 

The DEA provides estimated costs of the 

foreseeable potential economic impacts 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the 12 Hawaiian picturewing fly species from 2009 through 

2028. 

The draft economic analysis also 

addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on government agencies, 

private businesses, and individuals. 

Decision-makers can use the 

information from the final economic 

assessment to assess whether the effects 

of the revised designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. The draft economic analysis also 

looks retrospectively at costs that have 

been incurred since May 9, 2006, the 

date we listed the 12 Hawaiian picturewing fly species under the Act (71 FR 

26835), and considers those costs that 

may occur in the 20 years following the 

designation of critical habitat. Because 

the draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of all 

actions relating to the conservation of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 46863 

the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly 

species, including costs associated with 

sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act and 

those attributable to the revised 

designation of critical habitat, it may 

overestimate the potential economic 

impacts of the critical habitat 

designation. 

The analysis quantifies economic 

impacts of picture-wing fly critical 

habitat designation associated primarily 

with the following activities: (1) 

Preservation and watershed 

management in all but the Pit Crater 

unit on the Big Island; (2) game 

management and public recreational 

hunting in most of the units where land 

is owned by the State; (3) potential for 

future development on about 3 acres 

(1.2 hectares) of the Pit Crater unit on 

the Big Island; (4) harvesting of 

commercial timber from portions of the 

Stainback Forest and Waiakea Forest 

units; and (6) section 7 consultation 

administrative costs. 

The total pre-designation baseline 

costs during the period from 2006 to 

2008 in the area proposed for critical 

habitat designation are estimated by the 

DEA to range from $750,130 using a 3 

percent discount rate to $808,100 using 

a 7 percent discount rate. Because these 

costs are projected to occur whether 

critical habitat is designated or not, they 

cannot be considered in the Service’s 

determination of whether the benefits of 

including an area as critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of excluding the 

area. These costs are related to 

preservation and watershed 

management activities, and all or nearly 

all of the pre-designation baseline costs 

have been or will be borne by Federal 

and State agencies. A portion of the 

preservation and watershed 

management costs has been borne by a 

few private landowners. 

The annualized post-designation 

baseline costs during the period 2009 to 

2028 for preservation and water 

management activities are estimated to 

range from $348,845 using a 3 percent 

discount rate to $379,753 using a 7 

percent discount rate. Because these 

costs are projected to occur whether 

critical habitat is designated or not, they 

would not be considered in the 

Service’s determination of whether the 

benefits of including an area as critical 

habitat outweigh the benefits of 

excluding the area. All or nearly all of 

the post-designation baseline costs 

would be borne by Federal and State 

agencies, although a portion of the 

preservation and watershed 

management costs would be borne by a 

few private landowners. The combined 

post-designation baseline cost for these 

conservation activities is estimated by 

the DEA to be $5,345,730 at a 3 percent 

discount rate, and $4,305,470 at a 7 

percent discount rate. 

The DEA estimates that the 

annualized post-designation 

incremental costs for the activities 

described below during the period 2009 

to 2028 may range from $44,733 using 

a 3 percent discount rate to $46,916 

using a 7 percent discount rate. If we 

determine that these costs would occur 

as a result of critical habitat designation, 

they can be considered in our analysis 

of whether the benefits of including an 

area as critical habitat outweigh the 

benefits of excluding the area. The 

activity having the highest incremental 

cost ranking is preservation and 

watershed management, with an 

annualized value of approximately 

$23,969 using a 3 percent discount rate 

to $25,568 using a 7 percent discount 

rate. The second highest cost reflects a 

possible opportunity loss of harvesting 

trees in the Stainback Forest and 

Waiakea Forest units, resulting in an 

annualized value of approximately 

$12,693 using a 3 percent discount rate 

to $12,176 using a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

There may also be post-designation 

incremental costs of $68,590 using a 3 

percent discount rate to $56,000 using a 

7 percent discount rate from 2009–2028, 

related to future section 7 consultations 

for preservation and watershed 

management activities. All or nearly all 

of the post-designation incremental 

costs would be borne by Federal and 

State agencies, although a portion of the 

preservation and watershed 

management costs would be borne by a 

few private landowners. The combined 

post-designation incremental cost for all 

activities is projected to be $685,450 

using a 3 percent discount rate, and 

$531,780 using a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

Only the incremental costs of 

designating critical habitat, over and 

above the costs associated with species 

protection under the Act more 

generally, may be considered in 

designating critical habitat. Therefore, 

the methodology for distinguishing 

these two categories of costs is 

important. This is particularly true in 

the current case, where approximately 

90 percent of the total costs of species 

conservation over the next 20 years are 

projected to be baseline costs, and 10 

percent are projected to be incremental 

costs associated with the critical habitat 

designation. 

In the absence of critical habitat, 

Federal agencies must ensure that any 

actions they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species—costs 

associated with such actions are 

considered baseline costs. Once an area 

is designated as critical habitat, 

proposed actions that have a Federal 

nexus in this area will also require 

consultation and potential revision to 

ensure that the action does not result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Costs 

associated with these actions are 

considered incremental costs. The DEA 

explains that incremental section 7 

consultation that takes place as a result 

of critical habitat designation may fall 

into one of three categories: (1) 

Additional effort to address adverse 

modification in a consultation that also 

involves jeopardy; (2) re-initiation of a 

previously concluded consultation to 

address adverse modification; and (3) 

new consultation resulting entirely from 

critical habitat designation (i.e., where a 

proposed action may affect unoccupied 

critical habitat). The DEA estimates that 

there would be three project-level 

informal consultations related to 

Federal grants that would need to be 

reinitiated in 2009 to address picturewing fly critical habitat. There would 

also be one programmatic consultation 

that would need to be reinitiated in 

2009 related to the Hawai’i Volcano 

National Park management plan, and 

subsequent programmatic consultations 

every five years. The DEA indicates that 

since these consultations would be for 

preservation and watershed 

management activities, no or only 

minimal project modifications would be 

anticipated. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the DEA, as well as 

on all aspects of the proposed rule and 

our amended required determinations. 

We may revise the proposed rule or its 

supporting documents to incorporate or 

address information we receive during 

this comment period. In particular, we 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area as critical 

habitat, provided the exclusion will not 

result in the extinction of the species. 

Proposed Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of 

the Act 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of including that particular area as 

critical habitat, unless failure to 

designate that specific area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species. We may exclude an area 

from designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, national security, or 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
46864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

any other relevant impact. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must 

consider all relevant impacts, including 

economic impacts. For example, we 

consider whether there are landowners 

that have developed conservation plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion of lands from, critical habitat. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

During the development of a final 

designation, we will consider economic 

and other relevant impacts, including 

additional conservation plans that may 

be available, with regard to potential 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

In preparing this notice, we have 

determined that voluntary conservation 

efforts by private landowners are vital 

for the conservation and recovery of the 

12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species. 

As one example, significant progress has 

been made in habitat restoration on 

Maui Land and Pineapple Company’s 

(MLP) lands within the Puu Kukui 

Watershed Management Area 

(PKWMA), located in the West Maui 

Mountains. The proposed 584-acre (237- 

ha) critical habitat unit boundary for 

Drosophila neoclavisetae (Puu Kukui 

Unit 1) falls completely within the 

PKWMA. Since 1988, the MLP has 

proactively managed their 450 acres 

(182 hectares (ha)) within the PKWMA 

and is currently in its 15th year of 

contract with the State of Hawaii’s 

Natural Area Partnership (NAP) 

Program to preserve the native 

biodiversity of the company’s 

conservation lands. At just over 8,600 

acres (3,483 ha), the PKWMA is the 

largest privately owned preserve in the 

State. 

In 1993, the MLP became the first 

private landowner participant in the 

NAP program. They are pursuing four 

management programs stipulated in 

their Long Range Management Plan that 

emphasizes reducing nonnative species 

that immediately threaten the 

management area (Maui Land and 

Pineapple Company 1999). The primary 

management goals within PKWMA are 

to: (1) Eliminate ungulate activity in all 

Puu Kukui management units; (2) 

reduce the range of habitat-modifying 

weeds and prevent introduction of 

nonnative plants; (3) reduce the 

negative impacts of non-native 

invertebrates and small animals; (4) 

monitor and track biological and 

physical resources in the watershed in 

order to improve management 

understanding of the watershed’s 

resources; and (5) prevent the extinction 

of rare species within the watershed. 

Specific management actions to address 

feral ungulates include the construction 

of fences surrounding 10 management 

units and removal of ungulates within 

the PKWMA. 

The nonnative plant control program 

within PKWMA focuses on weeds that 

modify habitat, prioritizing weeds 

according to the degree of threat to 

native ecosystems, and preventing the 

introduction of new weeds. The weed 

control program includes mapping and 

monitoring along established transects 

and manual/mechanical control. Natural 

resource monitoring and research 

address the need to track biological and 

physical resources of the PKWMA, and 

evaluate changes to these resources in 

order to guide management programs. 

Vegetation is monitored through 

permanent photographic points, 

nonnative species are monitored along 

permanent transects, and rare, endemic, 

and indigenous species are monitored. 

Logistical and other support for 

approved research projects, interagency 

cooperative agreements, and remote 

survey trips within the watershed are 

also provided. 

At this time, we are evaluating the 

sufficiency of protection that the 

conservation activities being conducted 

by the MLP are providing for the 12 

picture-wing flies and features essential 

for their conservation on their lands 

(450 acres (182 ha)) that fall within the 

584-acre (237-ha) proposed critical 

habitat unit (Puu Kukui Unit 1). 

Therefore, we are specifically soliciting 

public comments on the possible 

exclusion of the MLP lands within 

proposed Puu Kukui Unit 1 under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The benefits of including lands in 

critical habitat can be regulatory, 

educational, or promote the recovery of 

species. The principal regulatory benefit 

of designating critical habitat in this 

area would be that Federal actions 

affecting D. neoclavisetae would require 

consultation under section 7 of the Act. 

Consultation would ensure that a 

proposed action does not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The most likely Federal 

nexus would be associated with Service 

funding for management activities that 

target invasive species removal, and the 

likely outcome of a section 7 

consultation would be conservation 

recommendations to avoid stands of 

Cyanea kunthiana and Cyanea 

macrostegia ssp. macrostegia when 

applying herbicides, or to use backpack 

sprayers to specifically target herbicide 

application. However, even in the 

absence of critical habitat designation, 

these conservation recommendations 

would still be included within the 

PKWMA invasive species control 

program. Accordingly, we believe that 

few additional regulatory benefits 

would be derived by including the MLP 

lands within the area designated as 

critical habitat for Drosophila 

neoclavisetae beyond those 

conservation benefits already being 

achieved through the implementation of 

the PKWMA Watershed Management 

Plan (WMP). 

There have been no section 7 

consultations regarding Drosophila 

neoclavisetae or its host plants with the 

PKWMA to date. The DEA anticipates 

that there would be two informal 

consultations associated with projects to 

remove non-native species over the next 

13 years. It also predicts that no formal 

consultations would be likely to occur 

over the 20-year timeframe of the 

analysis. The two informal section 7 

consultations anticipated by the DEA 

would take place based on the species 

presence in the area. Accordingly, 

section 7 consultation under the 

jeopardy standard would be required for 

Federal activities that may affect D. 

neoclavisetae, regardless of critical 

habitat designation. We do not foresee 

any additional consultations beyond 

those anticipated by the DEA, and 

predict that the section 7 consultation 

process for critical habitat would be 

unlikely to result in additional 

protections for the species. 

Consequently, there would be little 

regulatory benefit of designating critical 

habitat on the MLP lands within Puu 

Kukui Unit 1. 

The final listing rule for the 12 

picture-wing flies (71 FR 26835) 

acknowledged the importance of this 

area to the overall conservation of 

Drosophila neoclavisetae (Service 2006). 

The MLP is aware of the areas where D. 

neoclavisetae occurs on their property, 

and is already implementing 

conservation actions to benefit the 

species (MLP 2008, p. 2). We therefore 

believe that any additional educational 

benefits resulting from the designation 

of critical habitat on these lands would 

be minimal. The designation of critical 

habitat may provide benefits to the 

recovery of a species, however, in this 

case the MLP is already committed to 

implementing conservation actions on 

their lands under the existing watershed 

management plan (WMP), and any 

additional benefits to the recovery of 

this species beyond those already being 

realized would be limited. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 46865 

Benefits of Exclusion 

The MLP has a history of entering into 

conservation agreements with Federal 

and State agencies and other private 

organizations on their lands. These 

agreements further their mission of 

practicing prudent stewardship of their 

land and water resources to ensure the 

protection of rare and endangered plant 

and animal species, and water resources 

crucial to the community. The 

continued implementation of the WMP 

by the MLP will benefit Drosophila 

neoclavisetae through actions that 

manage invasive species and restore 

native species habitat. The WMP 

provides a significant conservation 

benefit to D. neoclavisetae’s host plant 

populations in the area, and we have a 

reasonable expectation that the 

strategies and measures will be 

effective. 

We believe that Drosophila 

neoclavisetae is benefiting substantially 

from the MLP’s proactive management 

actions, which include reducing 

ungulate browsing and habitat 

conversion, competition with nonnative 

weeds, and the risk of fire. These 

management actions also include the 

reintroduction of currently extirpated 

native species into restored habitats. 

The exclusion of the MLP lands from 

the proposed Puu Kukui—Unit 1 would 

allow us to continue working with this 

landowner in a spirit of cooperation and 

partnership. The MLP management plan 

acknowledges a shared interest in 

promoting healthy ecosystems and in 

protecting populations and habitat of D. 

neoclavisetae. Since the area has been 

actively managed as a preserve since 

1988, there is a reasonable expectation 

that the conservation management 

strategies and actions will continue to 

be implemented for the benefit of D. 

neoclavisetae’s habitat in the 

foreseeable future. Imposing an 

additional layer of section 7 

consultation by designating critical 

habitat could undermine our existing 

conservation partnership with the MLP 

and remove their incentive to accept the 

additional time and expense of 

management planning. We believe that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

strain the existing proactive working 

relationship we share with the MLP, 

and may hinder future cooperative 

conservation projects. 

Excluding the MLP lands from critical 

habitat designation would acknowledge 

their positive contribution to 

conservation on Maui. It would also 

reduce the cost of additional section 7 

consultation, which we believe would 

be unnecessary. We are hopeful that this 

recognition would provide other 

landowners with a positive incentive to 

undertake voluntary conservation 

activities on their lands, particularly 

where there is no regulatory 

requirement to implement such actions. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion and 

Benefits of Inclusion 

We believe the proactive management 

of Drosophila neoclavisetae habitat 

provided under the Maui Land and 

Pineapple Company Watershed 

Management Plan provides significant 

benefits to this species. In contrast, the 

benefits of including their lands as 

critical habitat would likely be minor, 

since there have been no section 7 

consultations in the area since the 

species was listed in 2006. If the MLP 

lands within the proposed Puu Kukui—

Unit 1 were to be excluded from critical 

habitat designation, the Puu Kukui 

WMA plan would continue to provide 

conservation benefits to the species 

through the ongoing implementation of 

strategies and measures that are 

consistent with currently accepted 

principles of conservation biology. 

Will Exclusion Result in Extinction of 

the Species? 

We believe that the exclusion of the 

MLP lands within the proposed Puu 

Kukui—Unit 1 from the final 

designation of critical habitat would not 

result in the extinction of the species. 

The continued implementation of their 

ongoing management programs will 

provide comparable or greater net 

conservation benefits than those that 

would result from critical habitat 

designation. These management 

programs provide tangible conservation 

benefits that reduce the likelihood of 

extinction for D. neoclavisetae, and 

increase the likelihood of its recovery. 

In addition, there are no known threats 

in the PKWMA associated with Federal 

actions requiring section 7 consultation, 

so extinction of the species as a 

consequence of not designating critical 

habitat would be unlikely. Further, 

because the 450 ac (182 ha)) of the 

MLP’s lands we are considering 

excluding from critical habitat 

designation are occupied by D. 

neoclavisetae, section 7 consultation 

would be required even in the absence 

of critical habitat designation, and any 

Federal actions that may affect the 

species would be evaluated under the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the 

Act, which provides assurances that the 

species would not become extinct. 

In addition, § 195D–4 of the Hawaii 

Revised Statutes, Endangered species 

and threatened species, stipulates that 

species determined to be endangered or 

threatened under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act shall be 

deemed endangered or threatened under 

the State law, and that it is unlawful 

under the State law (with some 

exceptions) to ’’take’’ such species, or to 

possess, sell, carry or transport them. 

The statutory protections provided 

under State law provide additional 

assurances that exclusion of the MLP 

lands from critical habitat designation 

would not result in extinction of 

Drosophila neoclavisetae. 

In summary, there may be few 

regulatory, educational, or recovery 

benefits from the exclusion of the MLP 

lands from critical habitat designation. 

On the other hand, there may be greater 

conservation benefits that would result 

from the exclusion of these lands, which 

include the implementation of 

affirmative actions for controlling 

invasive species, protecting host plant 

habitat, monitoring of native species, 

and restoration activities. Accordingly, 

we are requesting public comments on 

whether the benefits of excluding this 

area from critical habitat designation 

would outweigh the benefits of its 

inclusion, and thus whether the MLP 

lands should be excluded under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our November 28, 2007, proposed 

critical habitat rule (72 FR 67428), we 

said that we would defer our 

determination of compliance with 

several statutes and Executive Orders 

until the information concerning 

potential economic impacts of the 

designation and potential effects on 

landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. In this document 

we affirm the information in our 

proposed rule concerning Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13132, E.O. 12988, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA, we revise our 

required determinations concerning 

E.O. 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, 

Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, and E.O. 12630 

(Takings). 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
46866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 

U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an 

agency is required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

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. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

revised designation, we provide our 

analysis for determining whether the 

proposed rule would result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation as well as types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 12 

Hawaiian picture-wing fly species 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities. 

In order to determine whether it is 

appropriate for our agency to certify that 

this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

each industry or category individually. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement; some kinds of 

activities are unlikely to have any 

Federal involvement. The designation of 

critical habitat will not affect activities 

that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. 

If we finalize this proposed critical 

habitat designation, Federal agencies 

must consult with us under section 7 of 

the Act if their activities may affect 

designated critical habitat. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat would be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. 

Chapter 4 of the DEA evaluates the 

potential economic effects of the 

proposed revised designation on small 

entities, based on the estimated 

incremental impacts associated with the 

proposed rulemaking. The screening 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the proposed 

rulemaking as described in chapters 3 

and 4 and Appendix C of the DEA. The 

analysis evaluates the potential for 

economic impacts related to several 

categories, including: (1) Preservation 

and watershed management, (2) the 

purchase of Honouliuli Preserve, (3) 

game management, (4) timber harvest, 

(5) property values, and (6) 

administrative costs associated with 

section 7 consultation. 

Incremental economic impacts 

associated with section 7 consultations 

would fall on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

National Park Service, and Hawai‘i 

Department of Lands and Natural 

Resources. The Hawai‘i Department of 

Lands and Natural Resources may also 

experience an incremental economic 

impact associated with the opportunity 

loss of not selling mature trees from a 

portion of the Waiakea Timber 

Management Area. However, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, and State governments are not 

considered small government 

jurisdictions for purposes of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

The Board of Water Supply of the City 

and County of Honolulu may experience 

incremental costs for conservation on its 

land in the Makaha Valley and Mt. 

Ka‘ala units. However, the RFA/ 

SBREFA defines small governmental 

jurisdiction as the government of a city, 

county, town, school district, or special 

district with a population of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, the City and 

County of Honolulu is not considered a 

small government jurisdiction. 

Nonprofit organizations such as 

Kamehameha Schools, the Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai‘i (TNCH), the 

Queen Emma Foundation, and 

Watershed Partnerships could 

experience incremental costs associated 

with (1) the loss of property value for 3 

acres of land in the Pit Crater unit; (2) 

conservation projects on managed lands 

including the Pu‘u Kolekole, Pu‘u 

Kukui, Palikea, Pu‘u Kaua, and Kalua‘a 

Gulch units; (3) conservation projects on 

land in the Kohala Mountains West 

unit; and (4) conservation projects in the 

Wailupe, Pu‘u Kolekoke, Pu‘u Kukui, 

Kohala Mountains East, and Kohala 

Mountains west respectively. However, 

none of these nonprofit organizations 

are considered ‘‘small organizations’’ for 

purposes of the RFA/SBREFA. 

The James Campbell Co. LLC, Maui 

Land and Pineapple Company, Inc., and 

Moloka‘i Ranch are private companies 

that could experience incremental 

impacts associated with critical habitat 

designation, however, none of these 

businesses are considered to be small 

businesses for purposes of the RFA/ 

SBREFA. In this regard, the DEA 

concludes that none of the incremental 

economic impacts associated with 

designating critical habitat would be 

expected to fall on small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed critical habitat 

designation would result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and do not 

anticipate any substantial impacts on 

any small entities. We therefore certify 

that, if promulgated, the proposed 

revised designation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 46867 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, and Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. OMB’s guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’

when compared to no regulatory action. 

The DEA finds none of these criteria 

relevant to this analysis (Chapter 4 of 

the DEA). Thus, based on information in 

the DEA, we do not expect conservation 

activities within proposed critical 

habitat for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing 

fly species to lead to energy-related 

impacts. As such, we do not expect the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

to significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use, and a Statement of 

Energy Effects is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

we make the following findings: 

(a) The rule will 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 tribal 

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 tribal 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. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except as (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. Non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, permits, or otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the legally binding 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply; nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above on to 

State governments. 

(b) We do not believe that the 

proposed designation will significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments 

because it will not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or greater in 

any year, that is, it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. The proposed 

designation of critical habitat imposes 

no obligations on State or local 

governments. The SBA does not 

consider the Federal Government to be 

a small governmental jurisdiction or 

entity. Consequently, we do not believe 

that the revised critical habitat 

designation would significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

proposing critical habitat for the 12 

Hawaiian picture-wing fly species in a 

takings implications assessment. The 

takings implications assessment 

concludes that the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian 

picture-wing fly species does not pose 

significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the proposed 

designation. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Endangered Species 

Program, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18519 Filed 8–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0073; 14420–1113–

0000–C5] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Remove the Bliss Rapids 

Snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) 

From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 

Document Availability. 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of document availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of new information that may 

impact our status review for the Bliss 

Rapids snail (Taylorconcha 

serpenticola). This information has 

become available since the close of the 

comment period on our 90-day finding 

(72 FR 31250) on a petition to remove 

the Bliss Rapids snail from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife, pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Interested members of the public are 

invited to submit comments on this new 

information as it applies to the listing 

status of the Bliss Rapids snail. 

DATES: To ensure consideration in the 

12-month finding on this petition, 

comments and information should be 

submitted to us by August 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket 

FWS–R1–ES–2008–0073; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS