        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 080229343-8368-01]
        RIN 0648-XF87
        Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Notification of Finding on a Petition to List Pacific Eulachon as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of finding; request for information, and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

           On November 8, 2007, we, NMFS, received a petition to list populations of Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, we will initiate a status review of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, we solicit information regarding the population structure and status of Pacific eulachon throughout their range in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by May 12, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
           You may submit data, information, comments, identified by the code 0648-XF87, addressed to: Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov

          • Facsimile (fax): 503-230-5441
          • Mail: 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232.
          • Hand delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personally identifiable 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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe pdf file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           For further information regarding this notice contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2005; John Clancy, Southwest Region, (707) 825-5175; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On November 08, 2007, NMFS received a petition from the Cowlitz Indian Tribe to list southern eulachon (populations in Washington, Oregon, and California) as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. Copies of the petition are available from NMFS via the Internet (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/index.cfm) or by request (See ADDRESSES section, above).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
        Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ESA implementing regulations define Asubstantial information@ as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). In addition to the information presented in a petition, we review other data and publications readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files). 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 issue one of the following findings: (1) the petitioned action is not warranted; (2) the petitioned action is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a propped listing determination; or (3) the petitioned action is warranted but that a proposed listing is precluded by pending rulemaking for other species.
        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) (joint DPS policy). The joint DPS policy established 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 differences exist in exploitation control, habitat management, conservation status, or 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 result in 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). Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered based on any of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continuing existence. Listing determinations are based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data after taking into account any efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).
        Distribution and Life History of Eulachon

        Eulachon (commonly called smelt, candlefish, or hooligan) are endemic to the eastern Pacific Ocean ranging from northern California to southwest Alaska and into the southeastern Bering Sea. Eulachon typically spend 3-5 years in saltwater before returning to freshwater to spawn from late winter through mid spring. Spawning grounds are typically in the lower reaches of larger snowmelt-fed rivers (Hay and McCarter, 2000). In the portion of the species' range that lies south of the U.S. Canada border, most eulachon production originates in the Columbia River Basin. Other river basins in the U.S. where eulachon have been documented include: the Sacramento River, Russian River, Humboldt Bay and several nearby smaller coastal rivers (e.g., Mad River), and the Klamath River in California; the Rogue River and Umpqua Rivers in Oregon; and infrequently in coastal rivers and tributaries to Puget Sound in Washington (Emmett et al., 1991; Musick et al., 2000). Within the Columbia River Basin, the major and most consistent spawning runs occur in the mainstem of the Columbia River (from just upstream of the estuary, river mile (RM) 25, to immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam, RM 146) and in the Cowlitz River. Periodic spawning also occurs in the Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy rivers (tributaries to the Columbia River)(Emmett et al., 1991; Musick et al., 2000). Throughout the species' range, spawning occurs consistently in the Klamath River, Columbia and Cowlitz Rivers, and the Fraser and Nass rivers (British Columbia), and may occur rarely or intermittently in other coastal river systems from California to Alaska (Wilson et al., 2004).
        Spawning occurs in the lower sections of rivers at temperatures from 4 to 10 degrees C (Washington, 2001). Spawning occurs over sand or coarse gravel substrates. Eggs are fertilized in the water column, sink, and adhere to the river bottom typically in areas of gravel and coarse sand. Most eulachon adults die after spawning.
        Eulachon eggs hatch in 20-40 days. The larvae are carried downstream and are dispersed by estuarine and ocean currents shortly after hatching. Juvenile eulachon move from shallow nearshore areas to mid-depth midshore areas. Typically eulachon spend 3-5 years in saltwater before returning to freshwater to spawn.
        1999 Eulachon Petition
        In 1999, Mr. Sam Wright petitioned us under the ESA to add Columbia River eulachon to the list of federally threatened and endangered species. Mr. Wright expressed concern regarding marked declines in eulachon populations in the Columbia River system, and concluded that Columbia River eulachon populations were at risk of extinction and had no reasonable expectation of recovering or being replenished by nearby populations. After reviewing the petition, as well as other information readily available to us, we concluded that the petition provided insufficient information regarding the distinctness of eulachon populations in the Columbia River relative to the other populations in the species' range. In November 1999 we issued our finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted (64 FR 66601; November 29, 1999), and, therefore, no status review was conducted. We acknowledged there was cause for concern over decline in the eulachon catch in the Columbia River to an historical low. We noted, however, that the species' high fecundity and short life span contribute to highly variable and possibly cyclic run size, and it was therefore unclear whether the low catch levels at the time of the petition reflected natural variability in response to variable ocean conditions or an actual decline in stock status. Although we decided that a status review was not warranted, we encouraged state and tribal co-managers to improve their eulachon management and research efforts. In particular, we underscored the need to evaluate whether current harvest strategies adequately protect the species and to initiate more accurate eulachon abundance and life-history surveys.
        Analysis of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's Petition
        We reviewed the petition from the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, as well as other information readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within our files), to determine if the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Specifically, we evaluated whether: (1) the species may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs; and (2) the species, or a putative DPS, may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
        Information Regarding the DPS Structure of Eulachon
        The Cowlitz Indian Tribe's petition seeks delineation of a southern eulachon DPS extending from the U.S.-Canada border south to include populations in Washington, Oregon, and California. The petitioner concludes that the available genetic, meristic, and life-history information is inconclusive regarding the discreteness of eulachon populations. However, the petitioner argues that under the DPS policy eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California are collectively “discrete” from more northerly populations because they are delimited by an international governmental boundary (i.e., the U.S.-Canada border between Washington and British Columbia) across which there is a significant difference in exploitation control, habitat management, or conservation status. The petitioner notes that the U.S. and Canada differ in their regulatory control of commercial, recreational and tribal eulachon harvest, and also differ in their management of eulachon habitat. The petitioner concluded that there is no assurance that the U.S. and Canada will coordinate management and regulatory efforts sufficiently to conserve eulachon and their habitat, and thus the DPS should be delineated at the border between Washington and British Columbia. The petitioner argues that the southern eulachon population segment is also “significant” under the DPS policy because the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range. The petitioner notes that eulachon have largely disappeared in rivers throughout the southern portion of their range, and that eulachon in the Columbia River probably represent the southernmost extant population for the species. The loss of the Columbia River eulachon population and any dependent coastal spawning populations could represent the loss of the species throughout its range in the U.S., as well as the loss of a substantial proportion of its historical range.

        Although the petitioner felt that the available information is inconclusive, it was noted that eulachon may be composed of several smaller DPSs differentiable on the basis of differences in run timing, meristic, and genetic characteristics. Initial mitochondrial DNA genetic information (McLean et al., 1999) and elemental analysis of eulachon otoliths (Carolsfeld and Hay, 1998) suggested that eulachon did not exhibit genetic discreteness and represented a panmictic population throughout the species' range. Other biological data including the number of vertebrae, size at maturity, fecundity, river-specific spawning times, and population dynamics indicate that there is substantial local stock structure (Hart and McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 2000). These latter observations are consistent with the hypothesis that there is local adaptation and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent microsatellite genetic work (Beacham et al., 2005) appears to confirm the existence of significant differentiation among populations. Although the Fraser River, Columbia River mainstem, and the Cowlitz River spawning populations are genetically distinct from each other, they are more closely related to one another than to the more northerly British Columbia populations (Beacham et al., 2005).
        After reviewing the information presented in the petition as well as other information readily available to us (i.e., currently within NMFS files), we conclude that the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that eulachon may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs.
        Information Regarding Eulachon Status and Threats
        Although eulachon abundance exhibits considerable year-to-year variability, nearly all spawning runs from California to southeastern Alaska have declined in the past 20 years, especially since the mid 1990s (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Historically, the Columbia River has exhibited the largest returns of any spawning population throughout the species' range. The petitioner notes that from 1938 to 1992, the median commercial catch of eulachon in the Columbia River was approximately 1.9 million pounds (861,826 kg). From 1993 to 2006, the median catch had declined to approximately 43,000 pounds, representing a 97.7 percent reduction in catch from the prior period. Although there was an increasing trend in Columbia River eulachon catch from 2000-2003, recent catches are extremely low. The preliminary catch data for the 2008 Columbia River eulachon run suggest it may be the second lowest on record (i.e., since 1938) (WDFW, 2008). The petitioner also presents catch per unit effort and larval survey data (WDFW and ODFW, 2006) for the Columbia River and tributaries in Oregon and Washington that similarly reflect the depressed status of Columbia River eulachon during the 1990s, a relative increase during 2000 to 2004, and a decline back to low levels in recent years.
        The petitioner also notes that eulachon returns in the Fraser River and other British Columbia rivers similarly suffered severe declines in the mid-1990s and, despite increased returns during 2001 to 2003, presently remain at very low levels (DFO, 2006). Egg and larval surveys conducted in the Fraser River since 1995 also demonstrate that, despite the implementation of fishing restrictions in British Columbia, the stock has not recovered from its mid-1990s collapse and remains at a very low level. An offshore index of Fraser and Columbia River eulachon biomass, calculated from eulachon bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery off the west coast of Vancouver Island, illustrates highly variable biomass over the time series since 1973, but also reflects stock declines in the mid-1990s and in recent years (DFO, 2006). With respect to eulachon populations further south in the species' range, the petitioner notes that populations in the Klamath River, Mad River, Redwood Creek, and Sacramento River are likely extirpated or nearly so.
        The petitioner describes a number of threats facing eulachon range-wide, and facing populations in U.S. rivers in particular. The petitioner organizes this information according to the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The following paragraph provides a brief summary of the information on threats presented in the petition.
        The petitioner expresses concern that habitat loss and degradation threaten eulachon, particularly in the Columbia River basin. Hydroelctric dams block access to historical eulachon spawning grounds, and affect the quality of spawning substrates through flow management, altered delivery of coarse sediments, and siltation. The petitioner expressed strong concern regarding the siltation of spawning substrates in the Cowlitz River due to altered flow management and the accumulation of fine sediments from the Toutle River. The petitioner believes that efforts to retain and stabilize fine sediments generated by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens are inadequate. The petitioner notes that the release of fine sediments from behind a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sediment retention structure on the Toutle River has been negatively correlated with Cowlitz River eulachon returns 3 to 4 years later. The petitioner also expressed concern that dredging activities in the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers during the eulachon spawning run may entrain and kill fish, or otherwise result in decreased spawning success. The petitioner also noted that eulachon have been shown to carry high levels of chemical pollutants (US EPA, 2002), and although it has not been demonstrated that high contaminant loads in eulachon result in increased mortality or reduced reproductive success, such effects have been shown in other fish species (Kime, 1995).

        The petitioner expressed concern that depressed eulachon populations are particularly susceptible to overharvest in fisheries where they are targeted or taken as bycatch. The petitioner concluded that no evidence suggests that disease currently poses a threat to eulachon, but noted information presented in the 1999 petition to list eulachon that suggested that predation by pinnipeds may be substantial. The petitioner acknowledges that eulachon harvest has been curtailed significantly in response to population declines, and that were it not for continued low levels of harvest there would be little or no status information available for some populations. However, the petitioner concludes that existing regulatory mechanisms have proven inadequate in recovering eulachon stocks, and that directed harvest and bycatch may be important factors limiting the recovery of impacted stocks. The petitioner underscores the need for further fishery-independent monitoring and research. Finally, the petitioner concludes that global climate change is one of the greatest threats facing eulachon, particularly in the southern portion of its range where ocean warming trends may be the most pronounced. The petitioner felt that the risks facing southerly eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California will be exacerbated by such a deterioration of marine conditions. These southerly populations, already exhibiting dramatic declines and impacted by other threats (e.g., habitat loss and degradation), might be at risk of extirpation if unfavorable marine conditions predominated in the future. The petitioner noted that the Columbia River served as the single refuge for the species during the Wisconsinan glacial period (between 10,000 and 15,000 years before present), and that the loss of the Columbia River and other southerly eulachon populations would imperil the persistence of the taxon as a whole.
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in the petition and other information readily available in our files, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of the species concerned and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the petition (i.e., by November 8, 2008) whether the petitioned action is warranted.
        Information Solicited
        DPS Structure and Extinction Risk

        To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, we solicit information, and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES) concerning the status of eulachon. We solicit pertinent information such as: (1) biological or other relevant data pertinent to determining the DPS structure of eulachon (e.g., age structure, genetics, migratory patterns, morphology, physiology); (2) the abundance and biomass, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution of eulachon; (3) trends in abundance and distribution; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival, distribution, and abundance; and (5) current or planned activities and their possible impact on eulachon (e.g., harvest measures and habitat actions).
        Efforts Being Made to Protect Eulachon
        Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to the decline. We then assesses conservation measures to determine whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably be implemented and the degree of certainty that such efforts will be effective in furthering the conservation of the species (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003); and the presence of monitoring provisions that track the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform iterative refinements to management as information is accrued. In some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts are essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits are realized. We also encourage all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protect and conserve eulachon, as well as information on recently implemented or planned activities and their likely impact(s).
        References

        Copies of the petition and related materials are available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/index.cfm, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: March 6, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-4957 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT38
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice seeking to recover public comments.

          SUMMARY:

          On November 17, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, or we) proposed to designate the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to then remove this DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The public comment period for the proposed rule was open from November 17, 2005, until March 20, 2006. Due to a technological error, we did not receive complete information from a small number of interested parties who provided comments during the comment period for the proposed rule. This notice gives instructions for those commenters concerning how to resubmit their comments to us.

          DATES:
          We will accept the resubmitted e-mail comments for the proposed rule from only those commenters described below until the close of business on July 14, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          We encourage eligible commenters to resubmit their comments via e-mail to: grizzly_delisting@fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 309 University Hall, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812, or telephone (406) 243-4903.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On November 17, 2005, the Service proposed to designate the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears as a DPS and to then remove this DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (70 FR 69854). The public comment period for the proposed rule was open from November 17, 2005, until March 20, 2006. During this time, the Service received approximately 215,000 comments, 190,000 of which were submitted via e-mail. Over the course of the comment period, there were 2,220 e-mails that were incorrectly identified as spam by the filter used by the government e-mail system and, therefore, only part of the comment was received. We were able to contact all but 22 commenters. For these 22 commenters, we do not possess complete contact information. We are publishing this Federal Register notice in order to contact these 22 individuals. The information that we have for these 22 commenters consists of first and last names and partial e-mail addresses for 15 of the respondents and the first 26 characters of e-mail addresses (and no names) for the remaining 7 respondents. We have placed these partial names and e-mail addresses on a Web site where they can be viewed. By checking the Web site, e-mail respondents will be able to determine if their comment was one of the 22 comments that were incompletely received. Please visit http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/grizzly_delisting.html to see if your e-mail may be one of the 22 comments that we are requesting be resubmitted.

        We request that these 22 people resubmit their original comments by the date listed in the DATES section above. Comments will only be accepted from e-mail addresses that have identical information to that found on the Web site (http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/grizzly_delisting.html). This is not a reopening of the comment period but rather an attempt to retrieve specific comments that were already submitted during the comment period.
        Resubmitting Public Comments

        When resubmitting comments by e-mail, please avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your e-mail message. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address under the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 22, 2006.
          Marshall Jones,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 06-5830 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BA71
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Amendment 15 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 15 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 15), incorporating the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS is requesting comments from the public on Amendment 15, which was developed primarily to implement annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to bring the Scallop FMP into compliance with new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Amendment 15 includes additional measures recommended by the Council, including an adjustment to the overfishing definition, modification of the essential fish habitat (EFH) closed areas under the Scallop FMP, adjustments to measures for the Limited Access General Category fishery, adjustments to the scallop research set aside program, and additions to the list of measures that can be adjusted by framework adjustments.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on May 23, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          An FEIS was prepared for Amendment 15 that describes the proposed action and its alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of proposed measures and their alternatives. Copies of Amendment 15, including the FEIS and the IRFA, are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA71, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Peter Christopher.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Scallop Amendment 15.”

            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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone 978-281-9288, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Background: In January 2007, the MSA was reauthorized and included a new provision requiring each FMP to use ACLs to prevent overfishing, including measures to ensure accountability should the ACLs be exceeded. For fishery resources that were determined to be overfished, the reauthorized MSA required that such measures must be implemented by 2010. For fishery resources that were not overfished, the reauthorized MSA required that such measures must be implemented by 2011. Scallop fishery management measures to comply with the reauthorized MSA's ACL and AM requirements were required for 2011 because the scallop resource is not overfished. To meet this requirement, the Council initiated development of Amendment 15 when, on March 5, 2008, it published a Notice of Intent to develop Amendment 15 (73 FR 11888) and prepare and EIS to analyze the impacts of the proposed management alternatives. The Council intended that Amendment 15 would address three goals: (1) Bring the Scallop FMP into compliance with new requirements of the re-authorized MSA; (2) address excess capacity in the limited access scallop fishery; and (3) consider measures to adjust several aspects of the overall program to make the scallop management plan more effective. Following the public comment period that ended on August 23, 2010, the Council adopted Amendment 15 on September 29, 2010. The Council voted to exclude permit stacking and leasing alternatives that were designed to address excess capacity after considering extensive written and oral public comment on the measures. Ultimately the Council rejected these measures due to concerns that the measures would have unacceptable negative economic and social impacts on the scallop fleet and fishing communities. As adopted by the Council, Amendment 15 includes the following measures:
        • An acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule that would set ABC at a level that has a 25-percent probability of exceeding the overfishing limit to account for scientific uncertainty in the assessment of the status of the scallop resource;
        • Incidental and Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) catch limits;
        • Separate scallop ACLs and AMs for the limited access and LAGC fleets;
        • An annual catch target for the limited access fleet;
        • A “Limited Access Disclaimer” that would retract an impending limited access fleet AM if the fishery has not exceeded the fishing mortality rate associated with ABC, and an associated provision to re-allocate catch to the LAGC fleet if the Disclaimer provision is implemented;
        • A sub-ACL for yellowtail flounder coordinated with the Council's Northeast (NE) Multispecies FMP and AMs for the scallop fishery if the scallop fishery's yellowtail flounder sub-ACL is exceeded;
        • Modification of the overfishing definition for scallops to make it more compatible with rotational area management and to be consistent with the most recent formal scallop resource stock assessment;
        • An increase in the possession limit for limited access general category (LAGC) vessels from 400 to 600 lb per trip;
        • An allowance for carryover of unused individual fishing quota (IFQ) for LAGC vessels;
        • A provision to enable LAGC vessel owners to permanently transfer all or some IFQ separate from the vessel's LAGC permit;
        • Revision of the essential fish habitat (EFH) closures under the Scallop FMP to make them consistent with EFH closed areas under the NE Multispecies FMP;
        • Inclusion of third year default management measures under the biennial framework adjustment process;
        • Additions to the list of frameworkable measures; and
        • Several changes to the scallop research set aside program.
        Amendment 15 would establish the mechanism for implementing ACLs and AMs, which would be the basis for scallop fishery specifications, including days-at-sea, access area trip allocations, and IFQs. Amendment 15 does not include actual limits and fishery specifications. These specifications would be established under Framework 22 to the FMP for fishing years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Framework 22 has been adopted and submitted by the Council for NMFS review.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 15 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 15 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of Amendment 15 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by May 23, 2011, whether specifically directed to Amendment 15 or the proposed rule for Amendment 15, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 15. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 15. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 21, 2011.
          Margo Schulze-Haugen,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-7025 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 210219-0028]
        RIN 0648-BK18
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Removing the Processing Restriction on Incidentally Caught Squids and Sculpins in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fisheries

          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 remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of squids and sculpins to fishmeal only. This proposed rule is necessary to allow the processing and sale of squids and sculpins as products other than fishmeal and thereby to help prevent waste of the incidental catch of these ecosystem component species. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) (Groundfish FMPs), and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before March 29, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2020-0160, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0160, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as the “Analysis”) and the draft Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Authority for Action

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BSAI and GOA under the Groundfish FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Groundfish FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Groundfish FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

        All relevant comments submitted on this proposed rule and received by the end of the comment period (See DATES) will be considered by NMFS and addressed in the response to comments in the final rule.
        Background
        Squids and sculpins are defined in the ecosystem component (EC) category of the Groundfish FMPs. Directed fishing for EC species is prohibited. Incidental catch of squid species is retained in some groundfish fisheries and often utilized to prevent waste. Typically, sculpins are not retained but can be in some circumstances.
        The Council's 2017 and 2019 actions to reclassify squids and sculpins, respectively, into the EC category of the Groundfish FMPs were based on the best available scientific information and were consistent with the National Standard guidelines. The Federal rulemakings to implement the Council's actions prohibited the use or sale of incidentally caught squids and sculpins unless processed into fishmeal, in accordance with the regulations governing other EC species (85 FR 41427, July 10, 2020 (sculpin); 83 FR 31460, July 6, 2018 (squid)). The purpose of this action is to provide flexibility for the use of incidentally caught squids and sculpins, thereby reducing the waste of these EC species, and to align the regulations with the long-standing use of incidentally caught squid species as bait.
        The following sections of this preamble provide:
        • A brief history of the restriction on processing and sale of squids and sculpins,
        • The expected effects of and need for this action, and
        • A description of the regulatory change proposed in this action.
        Brief History of the Restriction on Processing and Sale of Squids and Sculpins
        EC species are stocks that a fishery management council (council) or the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has determined do not require conservation and management, but desire to list in an FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives (50 CFR 600.305(c)(5) & (d)(13) and 50 CFR 600.310(d)(1)). Retention and personal use of some EC species in the Groundfish FMPs (forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins) is allowed up to the applicable maximum retainable amount (MRA), which is the proportion or percentage of retained catch of a species closed for directed fishing (incidental catch species) to the retained catch of a species open for directed fishing (basis species) (50 CFR 679.20(e) & (i)). Current Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(i)(4) & (5) prohibit the processing, barter, trade, and sale of EC species in Alaska (forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins) unless they are processed as fishmeal.

        Amendment 96 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 87 to the GOA FMP (Amendments 96/87) (75 FR 61639, October 6, 2010) established the EC category and designated prohibited species (defined in Table 2b to 50 CFR part 679, to include salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish (defined in Table 2c to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in both the Groundfish FMPs.

        When Amendments 96/87 were recommended by the Council in 2010, the Council's stated intention was that prohibited species and forage fish would be in the new EC category. Because the retention, processing, and sale of prohibited species and forage fish was not permitted before their placement in the EC category, those restrictions remained in place and unchanged under Amendments 96/87. The Council did not indicate whether it intended that species added to the EC category at a later date would be subject to those same restrictions.
        When the Council took action to recommend reclassifying squids in the EC category in 2017, harvesters and processors expected that incidentally caught squids in the groundfish fisheries could be processed and sold as bait, consistent with long-standing and common practice. Similarly, when the Council recommended reclassifying sculpins in the EC category in 2019, there was some interest in exploring food fish markets for incidentally caught sculpins, which have rarely been retained or processed. However, once squids and sculpins were reclassified in the EC category, existing Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(i) applied to all EC species and prohibited the processing, barter, trade, and sale of squids and sculpins as anything other than fishmeal.
        In October 2019, the Council initiated an analysis to reconsider the processing and sale restrictions on squids and sculpins in the EC category. No other species in the EC category were considered in this analysis. As a result, processing and sale restrictions will remain in place for prohibited species, forage fish, and grenadiers under this action.
        The Expected Effects of and Need for This Action
        This action would continue to manage squids and sculpins as EC species in the Groundfish FMPs. Directed fishing of squids and sculpins would continue to be prohibited, and retention of squids and sculpins up to the MRA of 20 percent would continue to be permitted. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be maintained. The only proposed change to current regulations would be to remove the processing restrictions limiting processing and sale of squids and sculpins to fishmeal, and include new regulations on allowable fish products for squids and sculpins. Specifically, the proposed regulations would provide that retained catch of squids and sculpins not exceeding the MRA may be sold to a processor or processed into any product form, including (but not limited to) fishmeal, bait, and whole fish/food fish, for sale, barter, or trade. All other regulations pertaining to EC species would remain in place.
        This proposed action would allow squid species to be processed as whole bait and be available to local fixed gear fisheries, which may reduce costs for those vessels. While there has never been a significant market for sculpin products, this action would allow for the exploration of potential markets for incidentally caught sculpins up to the MRA.
        The potential social impacts of the alternatives on the fishing community are primarily economic in nature. Processing squid species into bait provides some revenue to shore-based processors (see Table 4-5 of the Analysis) and may reduce costs to local fleets, which currently purchase more expensive, imported bait. The potential economic impacts are limited, the potential benefits would be marginal, and no impacts were identified that would create adverse economic impacts on any fishing community or cause any other adverse social impacts.
        The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this proposed action would provide groundfish harvesters and processors with additional flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner by providing them with more options for the processing and sale of incidentally caught squids and sculpins up to the MRA, and would help reduce waste of these incidentally caught species.
        Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of incidentally caught squids and sculpins to fishmeal only, and would allow retained catch of squids and sculpins not exceeding the MRA to be sold to a processor or to be processed into any product form. This proposed rule is necessary to allow the processing and sale of squids and sculpins as products other than fishmeal and to help prevent waste of the incidental catch of these species. To make that change, this proposed rule would revise language in 50 CFR 679.20(i).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Groundfish FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule would remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of squids and sculpins to fishmeal only. The purpose of this action is to allow processing and sale of squids and sculpin products to provide enhanced economic opportunity and to prevent waste of the incidental catch of these species in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.
        Entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed rule include the owners and operators of catcher vessels (CVs), catcher/processor vessels (C/Ps), and motherships in the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA, and eligible shore-based processing facilities. These are the participants currently regulated by the prohibition at 50 CFR 679.20(i).
        In 2018, there were 182 CVs and 3 C/Ps in the BSAI, 756 CVs and 3 C/Ps in the GOA, and three motherships that met the definition of small entities. There also may be one or more shore-based processors that could be considered small entities because the processing company and its affiliates, worldwide, may employ fewer than 750 people. However, total employment numbers of processing companies and their affiliates, worldwide, are not available to make that small entity threshold determination. Based on the scope of this action, impacts to small, directly regulated entities are expected to be neutral or beneficial if the entities decide to use the flexibility this rule affords to process squids and sculpins into product forms in addition to fishmeal.

        As described above, this action does not place any new regulatory burden on groundfish fishery participants. Instead, it allows increased flexibility for the processing and sale of squids and sculpins. For all of the reasons described above, this proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the small entities directly regulated by this proposed action. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

        Regulatory Impact Review

        A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 22, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

        2. In § 679.20, revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (i) Forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins—(1) Definition. See Table 2c to this part.
          (2) Applicability. The provisions of this paragraph (i) apply to all vessels fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or GOA, and to all vessels processing groundfish harvested in the BSAI or GOA.
          (3) Closure to directed fishing. Directed fishing for forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins is prohibited at all times in the BSAI and GOA.
          (4) Limits on sale, barter, trade, and processing of forage fish and grenadiers. The sale, barter, trade, or processing of forage fish and grenadiers is prohibited, except as provided in paragraph (i)(5) of this section.
          (5) Allowable fishmeal production of forage fish and grenadiers. Retained catch of forage fish or grenadiers not exceeding the maximum retainable amount may be processed into fishmeal for sale, barter, or trade.
          (6) Allowable fish products for squids and sculpins. Retained catch of squids and sculpins not exceeding the maximum retainable amount may be sold to a processor or processed into any product form, including (but not limited to) fishmeal, bait, and whole fish/food fish, for sale, barter, or trade.

      [FR Doc. 2021-03900 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 62
        [PA124-4079b; FRL-7517-2]
        Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Control of Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW) section 111(d) plan (the plan) submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for the purpose of controlling landfill gas emissions (i.e., nonmethane organic compounds) from existing landfills, excluding those in the geographical areas of Allegheny County and the City of Philadelphia. The plan was submitted to fulfill requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act). In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's plan submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comments. A more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

          EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by July 24, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be mailed to Walter Wilkie, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Electronic comments should be sent either to wilkie.walter@epa.gov or to http://www.regulations.gov, which is an alternative method for submitting electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions described in the Supplementary Information section. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James B. Topsale at (215) 814-2190, or by e-mail at topsale.jim@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.
        You may submit comments either electronically or by mail. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number PA124-4079 in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
        1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
        i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to wilkie.walter@epa.gov, attention PA124-4079. EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
        ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to http://www.regulations.gov, then select “Environmental Protection Agency” at the top of the page and use the “go” button. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
        iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
        2. By Mail. Written comments should be addressed to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
        Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment or an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: June 16, 2003.
          James W. Newsom,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 03-15760 Filed 6-23-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-1488; MM Docket No. 01-135, RM-10154; MM Docket No. 01-136; RM-10155; and MM Docket No. 01-137; RM-10156]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Caliente, NV; Boswell, OK; and Altus, OK

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document proposes three allotments. The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Schleicher County Radio proposing the allotment of Channel 291C2 at Caliente, Nevada, as the community's second local FM transmission service. Channel 291C2 can be allotted to Caliente in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 291C2 at Caliente are 37-36-54 North Latitude and 114-30-40 West Longitude. See
            Supplementary Information,
            infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 13, 2001, and reply comments on or before August 28, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Randy Parker, 25415 Gleen Lock, The Woodlands, Texas 77380 (Consultant for Schleicher County Radio); Ann Bavender, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Counsel for Boswell Broadcasting Company); and Katherine Pyeatt, 6655 Aintree Circle, Dallas, Texas (Petitioner for Atlus, Oklahoma).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-135; MM Docket No. 01-136, and MM Docket No. 01-137, adopted June 13, 2001, and released June 22, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Boswell Broadcasting Company proposing the allotment of Channel 282C3 at Boswell, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 282C3 can be allotted to Boswell in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 282C3 at Boswell, Oklahoma are 34-01-38 North Latitude and 95-52-08 West Longitude.
        The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Katherine Pyeatt proposing the allotment of Channel 295C2 at Altus, Oklahoma, as the community's third local FM transmission service. Channel 295C2 can be allotted to Altus1 in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.8 kilometers (2.3 miles) northeast to avoid a short-spacing to the proposed allotment of Channel 296C3 at Paducah, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 295C2 at Altus are 34-39-30 North Latitude and 99-18-03 West Longitude.

        The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposed to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by adding Channel 295C2 at Altus and Boswell, Channel 282C3.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the table of FM Allotments under Nevada, is amended by adding Channel 291C2 at Caliente.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-17033 Filed 7-6-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-AY78
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Remove the Modoc Sucker From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          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 public comment period on our February 13, 2014, proposed rule to remove the Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This action allows us to accept and consider additional public comments on the proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final listing determination.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before March 16, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) 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:

            Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed rule and associated documents on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to “Proposed Rule” to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. 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 Information Requested section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 1936 California Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 97601; telephone 541-885-8481; or facsimile 541-885-7837.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On February 13, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 8656) a proposed rule to remove the Modoc sucker from Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to information suggesting that the species no longer needs protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). A completed scientific analysis of the biological information and threats facing the Modoc sucker is presented in detail in the Modoc Sucker Species Report (Service 2013, entire), which is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133. The Species Report was prepared by Service biologists to provide thorough discussion of the species' ecology and biological needs, and to provide an analysis of the threats that may be impacting the species.

        In order to comply with the public notification requirements of the Act under section 4(b)(5)(D) and to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our proposal, we are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see DATES, above).
        Information Requested
        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party concerning the proposal to remove the Modoc sucker from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Please see the Information Requested section of the February 13, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 8656) for a list of the information and comments that we particularly seek.
        If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final rulemaking. Our final determination concerning the proposed rule will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
        Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 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 submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, 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, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: February 2, 2015.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-02928 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 107
        [Docket No. RSPA-00-8439 (HM-208D)]
        RIN 2137-AD53
        Hazardous Materials: Temporary Reduction of Registration Fees

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; status.

          SUMMARY:

          RSPA is issuing this document to inform persons of the status of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which it published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000, proposing to: temporarily lower the registration fees paid by persons who transport or offer for transportation in commerce certain categories and quantities of hazardous materials; charge not-for-profit organizations the same registration fee as a small business; use the North American Industry Classification System for size criteria for determining if an entity is a small business; and allow payment by additional credit cards than previously authorized. Consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request to Congress, RSPA is further delaying final action on these proposals pending enactment of the Fiscal Year 2003 Department of Transportation appropriations. Therefore, under the existing regulations, for registration year 2002-2003, which begins July 1, 2002, the registration fees remain $300 (including a $25 processing fee) for small businesses and $2,000 (including a $25 processing fee) for all other registrants.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. David Donaldson, Office of Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, (202) 366-4484, or Ms. Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76889), RSPA issued a NPRM proposing to temporarily lower the registration fee for all registrants for the next six registration years (2001-2002 through 2006-2007) in order to eliminate an unexpended balance (or surplus) in the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants fund. The HMEP grants program supports hazardous material emergency response planning, training and related activities by States, local governments, and Indian tribes. RSPA also proposed to charge not-for-profit organizations the same registration fee as a small business; amend its reference to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business criteria to reflect SBA's replacement of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code system with the North American Industry Classification System; and allow payment by additional credit cards than previously authorized.

        On May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22080), RSPA published a status document in the Federal Register stating that, consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request to Congress, it was delaying final action on the proposals in the NPRM pending enactment of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Transportation appropriations. In that budget request, the President proposed to fund a portion of RSPA's hazardous materials safety program from fees collected through the Hazardous Materials Registration program. Although that proposal was not adopted by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2002 DOT appropriations, the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request to Congress again proposes to fund a portion of RSPA's hazardous materials safety program budget from fees collected through the Hazardous Materials Registration program. Therefore, consistent with the President's current budget request to Congress, RSPA is again delaying final action on the proposals contained in this rulemaking to temporarily reduce registration fees pending enactment of the Fiscal Year 2003 Department of Transportation appropriations.

        Consistent with current regulations, for registration year 2002-2003, which begins July 1, 2002, the registration fees remain unchanged at $300 (including a $25 processing fee) for small businesses and $2,000 (including a $25 processing fee) for all other registrants. Later this year, RSPA intends to issue a final rule on other proposals contained in the December 7, 2000 NPRM. A copy of the 2002-2003 registration form can be obtained after May 1, 2002, from our Web site at http://hazmat.dot.gov/register.htm and from our fax-on-demand service at 1-800-467-4922 (extension 2; document 700) .

          Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, 2002.
          Frits Wybenga,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 02-6122 Filed 3-13-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P