Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51615 

Chapter 62–256 Open Burning and Frost 

Protection Fires 

62–256.200 Definitions (Effective 7/6/05) 

62–256.300 Prohibitions (Effective 7/6/05) 

62–256.700 Open Burning Allowed 

(Effective 7/6/05) 

Chapter 62–296 Stationary Sources—

Emission Standards 

62–296.100 Purpose and Scope (Effective 3/ 

13/96) 

62–296.320 General Pollutant Emission 

Limiting Standards (Effective 3/13/96) 

62–296.340 Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (Effective 1/31/07) 

62–296.341 Regional Haze—Reasonable 

Progress Control Technology (Effective 

2/7/08) 

62–296.401 Incinerators (Effective 1/10/07) 

62–296.402 Sulfuric Acid Plants (Effective 

3/13/96) 

62–296.403 Phosphate Processing (Effective 

3/13/96) 

62–296.404 Kraft (Sulfate) Pulp Mills and 

Tall Oil Plants (Effective 3/13/96) 

62–296.405 Fossil Fuel Steam Generators 

With More Than 250 Million Btu Per 

Hour Heat Input (Effective 3/2/99) 

62–296.406 Fossil Fuel Steam Generators 

With Less Than 250 Million Btu Per 

Hour Heat Input, New and Existing 

Emissions Units (Effective 3/2/99) 

62–296.407 Portland Cement Plants 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.408 Nitric Acid Plants (Effective 1/ 

1/96) 

62–296.409 Sulfur Recovery Plants 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.410 Carbonaceous Fuel Burning 

Equipment (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.411 Sulfur Storage and Handling 

Facilities (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.412 Dry Cleaning Facilities 

(Effective 10/7/96) 

62–296.413 Synthetic Organic Fiber 

Production (Effective 2/12/06) 

62–296.414 Concrete Batching Plants 

(Effective 1/10/07) 

62–296.415 Soil Thermal Treatment 

Facilities (Effective 3/13/96) 

62–296.416 Waste-to-Energy Facilities 

(Effective 10/20/96) 

62–296.417 Volume Reduction, Mercury 

Recovery and Mercury Reclamation 

(Effective 3/2/99) 

62–296.418 Bulk Gasoline Plants (Effective 

5/9/07) 

62–296.470 Implementation of Federal 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (Effective 4/1/ 

07) 

62–296.480 Implementation of Federal 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (Effective 9/6/ 

06) 

62–296.500 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT)—Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) Emitting Facilities (Effective 1/1/ 

96) 

62–296.501 Can Coating (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.502 Coil Coating (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.503 Paper Coating (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.504 Fabric and Vinyl Coating 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.505 Metal Furniture Coating 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.506 Surface Coating of Large 

Appliances (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.507 Magnet Wire Coating (Effective 

1/1/96) 

62–296.508 Petroleum Liquid Storage 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.510 Bulk Gasoline Terminals 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.511 Solvent Metal Cleaning 

(Effective 10/7/96) 

62–296.512 Cutback Asphalt (Effective 1/1/ 

96) 

62–296.513 Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.514 Surface Coating of Flat Wood 

Paneling (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.515 Graphic Arts Systems (Effective 

1/1/96) 

62–296.516 Petroleum Liquid Storage 

Tanks with External Floating Roofs 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.570 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT)—Requirements for 

Major VOC and NOX-Emitting Facilities 

(Effective 3/2/99) 

62–296.600 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT)—Lead (Effective 3/ 

13/96) 

62–296.601 Lead Processing Operations in 

General (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.602 Primary Lead-Acid Battery 

Manufacturing Operations (Effective 3/ 

13/96) 

62–296.603 Secondary Lead Smelting 

Operations (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.604 Electric Arc Furnace Equipped 

Secondary Steel Manufacturing 

Operations (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.605 Lead Oxide Handling 

Operations (Effective 8/8/1994) 

62–296.700 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Particulate Matter 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.701 Portland Cement Plants 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.702 Fossil Fuel Steam Generators 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.703 Carbonaceous Fuel Burners 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.704 Asphalt Concrete Plants 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.705 Phosphate Processing 

Operations (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.706 Glass Manufacturing Process 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.707 Electric Arc Furnaces (Effective 

1/1/96) 

62–296.708 Sweat or Pot Furnaces 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.709 Lime Kilns (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.710 Smelt Dissolving Tanks 

(Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.711 Materials Handling, Sizing, 

Screening, Crushing and Grinding 

Operations (Effective 1/1/96) 

62–296.712 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

Process Operations (Effective 1/1/96) 

Chapter 62–297 Stationary Source—

Emissions Monitoring 

62–297.100 Purpose and Scope (Effective 3/ 

13/96) 

62–297.310 General Compliance Test 

Requirements (Effective 3/2/99) 

62–297.320 Standards for Persons Engaged 

in Visible Emissions Observations 

(Effective 2/12/04) 

62–297.401 Compliance Test Methods 

(Effective 3/2/99) 

62–297.440 Supplementary Test Procedures 

(Effective 10/22/02) 

62–297.450 EPA VOC Capture Efficiency 

Test Procedures (Effective 3/2/99) 

62–297.520 EPA Continuous Monitor 

Performance Specifications (Effective 3/ 

2/99) 

62–297.620 Exceptions and Approval of 

Alternate Procedures and Requirements 

(Effective 11/23/94) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–20385 Filed 9–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 0808201128–81129–01] 

RIN 0648–XJ97 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Notice of 90–Day Finding on a Petition 

to List the Three Ice Seal Species as 

a Threatened or Endangered Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition 

finding; request for information. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90–

day finding on a petition to list three ice 

seal species, [ringed (Phoca hispida), 

bearded (Erignathus barbatus), and 

spotted (Phoca largha)] as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Although the 

petition identifies ringed seals as Pusa 

hispida, at this time we believe that the 

ringed seal is more properly identified 

as Phoca hispida. We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action of listing the 

ice seals may be warranted. Therefore, 

we have initiated status reviews of the 

ice seals to determine if listing under 

the ESA is warranted. To ensure these 

status reviews are comprehensive, we 

are soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding all of these ice 

seal species. 

DATES: Information and comments must 

be submitted to NMFS by November 3, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data, identified by the 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), 

0648–XJ97, by any of the following 

methods: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
51616 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 

Mail: Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resource 

Division, NMFS, Alaska Regional Office, 

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802–

1668, 

Facsimile (fax): (907) 586–7012. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter N/ 

A in the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only interested 

persons may obtain a copy of the ice 

seal petition from the above address or 

online from the NMFS Alaska Region 

website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

protectedresources/seals/ice.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Wilder, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271 6620; Kaja Brix, NMFS Alaska 

Region, (907) 586–7235; or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to designate a 

species as threatened or endangered, the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) make 

a finding on whether that petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Joint ESA-implementing regulations 

between NMFS and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14) define 

‘‘substantial information’’ as the amount 

of information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted. 

In making a finding on a petition to 

list a species, the Secretary must 

consider whether the petition: (i) clearly 

indicates the administrative measure 

recommended and gives the scientific 

and any common name of the species 

involved; (ii) contains a detailed 

narrative justification for the 

recommended measure, describing, 

based on available information, past and 

present numbers and distribution of the 

species involved and any threats faced 

by the species; (iii) provides information 

regarding the status of the species over 

all or a significant portion of its range; 

and (iv) is accompanied by the 

appropriate supporting documentation 

in the form of bibliographic references, 

reprints of pertinent publications, 

copies of reports or letters from 

authorities, and maps (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2)). To the maximum extent 

practicable, this finding is to be made 

within 90 days of the date the petition 

was received, and the finding is to be 

published promptly in the Federal 

Register. When it is found that 

substantial information is presented in 

the petition, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species concerned. Within 

1 year of receipt of the petition, we shall 

conclude the review with a finding as to 

whether the petitioned action is 

warranted. 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a species, 

subspecies, or a distinct population 

segment (DPS) of any vertebrate species 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-USFWS 

policy clarifies the agencies’

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife’’ (ESA section 

3(16)) for the purposes of listing, 

delisting, and reclassifying a species 

under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 

1996). The joint DPS policy establishes 

two criteria that must be met for a 

population or group of populations to be 

considered a DPS: (1) the population 

segment must be discrete in relation to 

the remainder of the species (or 

subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 

the population segment must be 

significant to the remainder of the 

species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs. A population segment may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (1) it is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same biological taxon 

as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors (quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries across which 

there is a significant difference in 

exploitation control, habitat 

management, conservation status, or if 

regulatory mechanisms exist that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1) (D) 

of the ESA. If a population is 

determined to be discrete, the agency 

must then consider whether it is 

significant to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Considerations in evaluating 

the significance of a discrete population 

include: (1) persistence of the discrete 

population in an unusual or unique 

ecological setting for the taxon; (2) 

evidence that the loss of the discrete 

population segment would cause a 

significant gap in the taxon’s range; (3) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere outside its 

historical geographic range; or (4) 

evidence that the discrete population 

has marked genetic differences from 

other populations of the species. A 

species, subspecies, or DPS is 

‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, or ‘‘threatened’’ if 

it is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range (ESA 

sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). 

Background 

On March 28, 2008, we issued a 90–

day finding in response to a petition to 

list the ribbon seal as threatened or 

endangered (73 FR 16,617). We found 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. We therefore 

initiated a status review for the ribbon 

seal. Concurrent with that decision, we 

announced that we were also initiating 

a status review of three other ice seals 

(ringed, bearded, and spotted). 

On May 28, 2008, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list three species of ice seals 

(ringed, bearded, spotted) as threatened 

or endangered species under the ESA. 

The petitioner also requested that 

critical habitat be designated for ice 

seals concurrent with listing under the 

ESA. As described in this petition, the 

spotted seal is monotypic. The bearded 

seal contains two currently recognized 

subspecies, and the ringed seal contains 

five currently recognized subspecies: 

Phoca hispida hispida, Phoca hispida 

botnica, Phoca hispida ochotensis, 

Phoca hispida ladogensis, and Phoca 

hispida saimensis. Although the 

petition identifies ringed seals as Pusa 

hispida, we believe that the ringed seal 

is more properly identified as Phoca 

hispida. According to the petitioner, 

each of these subspecies meets the 

definition of a ‘‘species’’ eligible for 

listing under the ESA. In the event that 

we do not find that the entire species of 

ringed seal or bearded seal meets the 

requirements for listing, the petitioner 

requests that we evaluate whether each 

subspecies of bearded and ringed seals 

is eligible for listing. In the event that 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51617 

we do not recognize the taxonomic 

validity of the bearded and ringed seal 

subspecies or the spotted seal species as 

described in this petition, the petitioner 

requests that we evaluate whether the 

spotted, ringed and bearded seals of the 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas that 

are the subject of this petition constitute 

a DPS of the full species and/or 

represent a significant portion of the 

range of the full species and are 

therefore eligible for listing on such 

basis. 

It is the petitioner’s contention that 

ice seals face global extinction in the 

wild, and therefore, constitute a 

threatened or endangered species as 

defined under 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 

(20). The petition presents information 

on (1) ‘‘global warming which is 

resulting in the rapid melt of the seals’

sea-ice habitat;’’ (2) ‘‘high harvest levels 

allowed by the Russian Federation;’’ (3) 

‘‘oil and gas exploration and 

development;’’ (4) ‘‘rising contaminant 

levels in the Arctic;’’ and (5) ‘‘bycatch 

mortality and competition for prey 

resources from commercial fisheries.’’

The petition also presents information 

on the species’ taxonomy, distribution, 

habitat requirements, reproduction, diet, 

natural mortality, and demographics, as 

well as a discussion of the applicability 

of the five factors listed under ESA 

section 4(a)(1). We have reviewed the 

petition, the literature cited in the 

petition, and other literature and 

information available in our files. Based 

on our review of the petition and other 

available information, we find that the 

petition meets the aforementioned 

requirements of the regulations under 

50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and therefore 

determine that the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the requested listing action may be 

warranted. 

Status Review 

As a result of this finding, we will 

continue our ongoing status review to 

determine whether listing ringed, 

bearded, and spotted seals under the 

ESA is warranted. We intend that any 

final action resulting from this status 

review will be as accurate and as 

effective as possible. Therefore, we are 

opening a 60–day public comment 

period to solicit comments, suggestions, 

and information from the public, 

government agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties on the status of the ice 

seals throughout their range, including: 

(1) Information on taxonomy, 

abundance, reproductive success, age 

structure, distribution, habitat selection, 

food habits, population density and 

trends, habitat trends, and effects of 

management on ice seals; 

(2) Information on the effects of 

climate change and sea ice change on 

the distribution and abundance of ice 

seals, and their principal prey over the 

short- and long-term; 

(3) Information on the effects of other 

potential threat factors, including oil 

and gas development, contaminants, 

hunting, poaching, and changes in the 

distribution and abundance of ice seals 

and their principal prey over the shortterm and long-term; 

(4) Information on management 

programs for ice seal conservation, 

including mitigation measures related to 

oil and gas exploration and 

development, hunting conservation 

programs, anti-poaching programs, and 

any other private, tribal, or 

governmental conservation programs 

which benefit ice seals; and 

(5) Information relevant to whether 

any populations of the ice seal species 

may qualify as distinct population 

segments. 

We will base our findings on a review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

information available, including all 

information received during the public 

comment period. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20544 Filed 9–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 0808051052–81144–01] 

RIN 0648–AW85 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Referendum Procedures for a Potential 

Gulf of Mexico Grouper and Tilefish 

Individual Fishing Quota Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to provide potential participants 

information concerning a referendum 

for an individual fishing quota (IFQ) 

program for the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) 

commercial grouper and tilefish 

fisheries. This rule informs the potential 

participants of the procedures, 

schedule, and eligibility requirements 

that NMFS would use in conducting the 

referendum. If the IFQ program, as 

developed by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

is approved through the referendum 

process, the Council may choose to 

submit the IFQ program to the Secretary 

of Commerce (Secretary) for review, 

approval, and implementation. The 

intended effect of this proposed rule is 

to implement the referendum consistent 

with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule, identified by 

‘‘0648–AW85’’, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: 

Susan Gerhart. 

• Mail: Susan Gerhart, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments. 

Attachments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Copies of supporting documentation 

for this proposed rule, which includes 

a regulatory impact review (RIR) and a 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

(RFAA), are available from NMFS at the 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, 727–824–5305. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery in the exclusive economic 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS