Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67673 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1004] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Increase of Security 

Zones From 100 to 500 Yards; San 

Francisco Bay, Delta Ports, Monterey 

Bay, and Humboldt Bay, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a 

permanent increase in security zone size 

from 100 yards (91 meters) to 500 yards 

(457 meters) on the navigable waters of 

San Francisco Bay, Delta Ports, 

Monterey Bay, and Humboldt Bay, CA. 

Security zones are necessary to 

effectively protect high value assets 

(HVAs) such as cruise ships, high 

interest vessels (HIV), or tankers, as 

defined in 33 CFR 165.1183. A security 

zone is only enforceable within the 

limits of that zone. The limitation of the 

100 yard (91 meters) security zone 

hinders reaction time and the ability of 

the coxswains to determine the target of 

interest’s (TOI) intent, properly assess 

the situation, and execute protective 

measures for HVAs. Persons and vessels 

are prohibited from entering into, 

transiting through, or anchoring within 

the temporary security zones unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

her designated representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before December 3, 2010. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before November 22, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–1004 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior 

Grade Allison A. Natcher, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone 

415–399–7442 e-mail D11-PFMarineEvents@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–1004), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http://www.

regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. If you submit a comment 

online via http://www.regulations.gov, it 

will be considered received by the Coast 

Guard when you successfully transmit 

the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, 

or mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–1004’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

1004’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Experiences during security zone 

enforcement operations, observations 

during boat tactics training, and 

discussions with Commanding Officers/ 

Officers in Charge and tactical 

coxswains from Sector San Francisco’s 

Level I Ports, Waterways and Coastal 

Security (PWCS) stations, has led 

Enforcement staff and field units to 

determine that the current 100-yard (91 

meters) security zones are not adequate 

enough to protect a high value asset 

from sabotage, subversive acts, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
67674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

accidents, criminal actions, or other 

causes of a similar nature. While 

enforcing a security zone, screening or 

reaction vessels are required to wait 

until a target of interest (TOI) enters the 

zone prior to taking preventative 

measures against the TOI from 

approaching a high value asset. 

The increase of the security zones to 

500 yards (457 meters) would allow 

reaction time to a vessel closing in at 20 

knots to increase from 9 seconds (for 

100 yards/91 meters) to 36 seconds (for 

500 yards/457 meters). A 500 yard (457 

meters) security zone would increase 

reaction time, allow proper assessment 

of the situation, and would improve the 

ability of the tactical coxswains to 

properly execute protective measures. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a permanent increase in security zone 

size from 100 yards (91 meters) to 500 

yards (457 meters) of any cruise ship, 

tanker or HIV that is underway, 

anchored, or moored within the 

navigable waters of San Francisco Bay, 

Delta Ports, Monterey Bay, and 

Humboldt Bay, CA. 

‘‘Cruise ship,’’ ‘‘tanker’’ and ‘‘HIV’’ are 

defined under 33 CFR 165.1183 (b). 

Security zones are necessary to 

effectively protect these high value 

assets from sabotage or other subversive 

acts, accidents, criminal actions, or 

other causes of a similar nature. Persons 

and vessels will be prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, or 

anchoring within the temporary safety 

zones unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, or her designated 

representative. 

Security zones will be enforced by 

Coast Guard patrol craft and San 

Francisco Harbor Police as authorized 

by the Captain of the Port. See 33 CFR 

6.04–11, Assistance of other agencies. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

These regulations exist for a limited 

period of time on a limited portion of 

the waterways. Further, individuals and 

vessels desiring to use the affected 

portion of the waterways may seek 

permission from the Patrol Commander 

to use the affected areas. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We expect this rule may affect 

owners and operators of vessels, some of 

which may be small entities, intending 

to fish, sightsee, transit, or anchor in the 

waters affected by these security zones. 

These security zones will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

several reasons: Small vessel traffic will 

be able to pass safely around the area 

and vessels engaged in event activities, 

sightseeing and commercial fishing have 

ample space outside of the area 

governed by the special local 

regulations to engage in these activities. 

Small entities and the maritime public 

will be advised of implementation of 

these security zones via public notice to 

mariners or notice of implementation 

published in the Federal Register. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Lieutenant 

Junior Grade Allison A. Natcher, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; 

telephone 415–399–7442 e-mail D11-PFMarineEvents@uscg.mil. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67675 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 165.1183 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1183 Security Zones; Cruise Ships, 

Tankers and High Interest Vessels, San 

Francisco Bay and Delta Ports, Monterey 

Bay and Humboldt Bay, California. 

(a) Locations. (1) San Francisco Bay. 

All waters, extending from the surface 

to the sea floor, within 500 yards (457 

meters) ahead, astern, and extending 

500 yards (457 meters) along either side 

of any cruise ship, tanker, or HIV that 

is underway, anchored, or moored 

within the San Francisco Bay and Delta 

port areas shoreward of the line drawn 

between San Francisco Main Ship 

Channel buoys 7 and 8 (LLNR 4190 & 

4195, positions 37°46.9′ N, 122°35.4′ W 

and 37°46.5′ N, 122°35.2′ W, 

respectively). 

(2) Monterey Bay. All waters, 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor, within 500 yards (457 meters) 

ahead, astern, and extending 500 yards 

(457 meters) along either side of any 

cruise ship, tanker, or HIV that is 

underway, anchored, or moored within 

the Monterey Bay area shoreward of a 

line drawn between Santa Cruz Light 

(LLNR 305) to the north in position 

36°57.10′ N, 122°01.60′ W, and Cypress 

Point, Monterey to the south, in position 

36°34.90′ N, 121°58.70′ W. 

(3) Humboldt Bay. All waters, 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor, within 500 yards (457 meters) 

ahead, astern, and extending 500 yards 

(457 meters) along either side of any 

cruise ship, tanker, or HIV that is 

underway, anchored, or moored within 

the Humboldt Bay area shoreward of a 

4 nautical mile radius line drawn to the 

west of the Humboldt Bay Entrance 

Lighted Whistle Buoy HB (LLNR 8130) 

in position 40°46.25′ N, 124°16.13′ W. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Cruise ship means any vessel over 100 

gross register tons, carrying more than 

12 passengers for hire which makes 

voyages lasting more than 24 hours, of 

which any part is on the high seas. 

Passengers from cruise ships are 

embarked or disembarked in the U.S. or 

its territories. Cruise ships do not 

include ferries that hold Coast Guard 

Certificates of Inspection endorsed for 

‘‘Lakes, Bays and Sounds’’ that transit 

international waters for only short 

periods of time on frequent schedules. 

Designated representative means any 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard on board 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

and local, state and federal law 

enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port. 

High Interest Vessel or HIV means any 

vessel deemed by the Captain of the 

Port, or higher authority, as a vessel 

requiring protection based upon risk 

assessment analysis of the vessel and is 

therefore escorted by a Coast Guard or 

other law enforcement vessel with an 

embarked Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer. 

Tanker means any self-propelled tank 

vessel constructed or adapted primarily 

to carry oil or hazardous materials in 

bulk in the cargo spaces. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.33 of 

this part, entry into or remaining in the 

zones described in paragraph (a) of this 

section is prohibited unless authorized 

by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, 

San Francisco Bay, or her designated 

representative. 

(2) Mariners seeking permission to 

transit through a security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section may request authorization to do 

so from the Patrol Commander 

(PATCOM), a designated representative. 

The PATCOM may be contacted on 

VHF–FM Channel 16. 

(3) All persons and vessels granted 

permission to enter a security zone must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port or the designated 

representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
67676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: October 19, 2010. 

C.L. Stowe, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27707 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0814; FRL–9219–6] 

Delegation of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories; State of 

Nevada; Clark County Department of 

Air Quality and Environmental 

Management 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 

EPA is proposing to grant delegation of 

specific national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to 

Clark County, Nevada. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by December 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0814, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal concerns the delegation of 

unchanged NESHAP to Clark County, 

Nevada. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

amending regulations to reflect the 

current delegation status of NESHAP in 

Nevada. EPA is taking direct final action 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency believes this action is not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in a 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. 

Dated: October 5, 2010. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27804 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0078; MO 

92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW53 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain 

Milk-Vetch) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on our 

April 1, 2010, proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain 

milk-vetch) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus and 

an amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We are 

reopening the comment period for an 

additional 30 days to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the items listed above. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will consider public 

comments we receive on or before 

December 3, 2010. Comments must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0078. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0078; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

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). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS