        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH59

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of Lesquerella filiformis (Missouri Bladderpod) from Endangered to Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reclassify Lesquerella filiformis (Missouri bladderpod) from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are proposing this reclassification because the endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the current status of this plant based on the plant's significant progress toward recovery, and in response to a petition from the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) to reclassify this species. Since the time of listing, the number of known populations of the plant has substantially increased and the threats to some of the larger populations have decreased because of land acquisition, landowner contact programs, and beneficial management initiatives. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Federal protection and recovery provisions for threatened plants provided by the Act to the Missouri bladderpod.

          DATES:
          Comments from all interested parties must be received by August 11, 2003 so they can be considered in our final decision. Public hearing requests must be received by July 25, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be sent to: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200, Columbia, MO 65201-7712. Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail to bladderpod@fws.gov or by facsimile to 573/876-1914. The subject line should be “Bladderpod Comments.” Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address following the close of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul McKenzie, Ph.D., Columbia Field Office (see
            ADDRESSES section) (telephone: 573/876-1911, ext. 107; facsimile: 573/876-1914). Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800/877-8337 for TTY assistance.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

          Lesquerella filiformis (Missouri bladderpod) is an annual plant with erect, hairy stems approximately 20 centimeters (cm) (8 inches (in)) in height that branch from the plant's base. Basal leaves are hairy on both surfaces, 1.0-2.25 cm (0.4-0.9 in) long, 0.3-1.0 cm (0.1-0.4 in) wide, broadly rounded, and tapering to a narrow petiole. Stem leaves are densely hairy with stellate hairs on both surfaces, 1.0-3.2 cm (0.4-1.3 in) long and 1.6-16 millimeters (mm) (0.06-0.6 in) wide, and have a silvery appearance. Bright yellow flowers with 4 petals occur at the top of the stems in late April or early May (Morgan 1980). Missouri bladderpod is restricted to shallow soils of limestone glades in southwestern Missouri (Hickey 1988; Thomas 1996) and northwestern Arkansas and, occasionally, dolomite glades in north-central Arkansas (John Logan, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), pers. comm. 2000).

          Lesquerella filiformis Rollins, a member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae), was first collected in 1887 in southwestern Missouri. Payson (1921), however, misapplied the name Lesquerella angustifolia (Nutt.) S. Wats. to these early collections. Rollins (1956) formally described Lesquerella filiformis as a distinct species, and its taxonomic validity was further supported in a subsequent monograph on the genus Lesquerella in North America by Rollins and Shaw (1973).

        Historically, Missouri bladderpod was believed to be a State endemic plant known solely from a few sites in two counties in southwestern Missouri (Morgan 1980; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). In 1980, a total of 550 individual plants were estimated at 4 sites, and at the time of listing as endangered in 1987, an estimated 5,000 plants were determined to occur at 9 sites (Morgan 1980; 52 FR 679, January 8, 1987). At the time of the completion of the Missouri Bladderpod Recovery Plan in 1988, the species was known from 11 sites in Christian, Dade, and Greene Counties, MO (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). During that same year, the Service funded a four-county survey for the species in Missouri, and an additional 45 sites were located (Hickey 1988). A followup survey in 1989 yielded an additional 13 sites (Thurman and Hickey 1989). Further botanical explorations led to the discovery of 16 additional sites, including locations in an additional county in Missouri (Lawrence County) and one site each in Izard and Washington Counties, AR (Theo Witsell, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, in litt. 2002). In the spring of 1997, MDC botanist Bill Summers (while working on the Flora of Missouri project) discovered the species at a limestone/dolomite quarry in Izard County, northcentral Arkansas (Theo Witsell in litt. 2002). Subsequent investigations following this find led to documentation of an additional site in Washington County, northwestern Arkansas, discovered in 1992 (Theo Witsell in litt. 2002). In the spring of 1998, surveys were expanded in Arkansas, and, although no new sites were discovered in the State, a more extensive population of Missouri bladderpod was found at the Izard County site than had been originally discovered in 1997 (John Logan, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, pers. comm. 1998). The population at the Washington County site had not been observed since 1992 until it was rediscovered on May 1, 2002, when approximately 500 flowering and fruiting plants were discovered on a small glade opening at the original 1992 site (Theo Witsell, in litt. 2002). Currently, Missouri bladderpod is known to occur at a total of 61 sites in 4 counties in Missouri and 2 sites in 2 counties in Arkansas.

        Population levels of Missouri bladderpod fluctuate widely as is typical of winter annuals, depending on edaphic (soil components) and climatic conditions, and factors such as seed crop from the preceding season, seed survival in the seed bank, recruitment from the seed bank, and the survival of growing plants (Thomas 1998). Annual monitoring data have been collected for a minimum of 11 consecutive years at two Missouri sites, and irregular monitoring has occurred at numerous other sites. Thomas (1998) and Boetsch (in litt. 2002) reported changes in population status of Lesquerella filiformis between 1988 and 2001 on National Park Service (NPS) property at Bloody Hill Glade, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, and observed that the population ranged between 0 and 303,446 plants, with an average annual population of 63,170 plants (Table 1). The MDC monitored 21 permanent plots within one population at the Rocky Barrens Conservation Area between 1992 and 2001 and noted that the number of individual plants varied between 2 and 3,584 (Tim Smith, MDC, in litt. 2002, Table 1). Monitoring of a population at Cave Springs Outcrop Glade in Dade County in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1990, and 1993 yielded 500, 545, 50, 0, and 0 plants, respectively (MDC 2002a). To date, the maximum population estimate at the Izard County, AR, site has been “tens of thousands of plants,” in 1997, while in 1999 only a few plants were found at the same site (Theo Witsell, in litt. 2002). Irregular monitoring (a minimum of 4 years of data between 1993 and 1999) at seven Nature Conservancy registry sites yielded similar fluctuations in population numbers as described elsewhere, with estimates ranging from 0 to 47 plants at the smallest population and 3 to 3,448 plants at the largest (Susanne Greenlee, TNC, in litt. 1999, MDC 2002a).

            Table 1.—Annual Population Estimates of Missouri Bladderpod on Bloody Hill Glade (Wilson's Creek National Battlefield) and in 21 Plots at Rocky Barrens Conservation Area, Greene County, MO, 1988-2001

          [From Thomas 1998; Tim Smith, in litt. 2002; John Boetsch, in litt. 2002]

            Year
            Estimated population size (number of plants)
            Bloody Hill Glade
            Rocky Barrens Conservation Area (21 plots)

            1988
            58,351
            —

            1989
            31,911
            —

            1990
            10,154
            —

            1991
            303,446
            —

            1992
            24,611
            110

            1993
            0
            1,211

            1994
            0
            200

            1995
            18,514
            2,295

            1996
            88,166
            224

            1997
            33,873
            3,584

            1998
            30,475
            1,283

            1999
            66,650
            320

            2000
            72,623
            143

            2001
            145,604
            2

            Average
            63,170

              1 937

            1 Average within 21 permanent plots—total population size at this site is much larger.

        An examination of the status of most extant sites following the procedures established by Hickey (1988) was conducted in the spring of 2000. Hickey visited 52 extant sites between April and May and noted that: (1) Populations of the species were found in the same terrace or rock shelf as they were in 1988-1990, and (2) some sites exhibited lower numbers than in 1988-1990, apparently attributable to the drought conditions, increase in cedar density or encroachment of other woody vegetation, or competition from exotic species of brome grasses (Bromus spp.). Increases in population density at some locations apparently resulted from tree removal and maintained grazing (Hickey 2000). Continued long-term monitoring of some larger sites in Missouri and the site in Izard County, AR, is also planned.

        In years when germination, overwinter survival, seedling establishment, and plant growth are ideal, Lesquerella filiformis populations can be so large as to make rangewide population estimates extremely difficult. Despite the difficulty, estimates made by Hickey (1988) at 55 sites in Missouri yielded approximately 400,000 plants. Had rangewide estimates been taken in 1991 when 303,446 plants were estimated at Bloody Hill Glade, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (Table 1, Thomas 1998), the population that year likely would have exceeded 500,000 plants. However, given the extreme annual fluctuations in population size, only long-term monitoring efforts patterned similarly to the protocol developed for the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (Kelrick 2001a, 2001b) can accurately reflect the true population status and trend of this species and effectively evaluate the efficacy of management regimes on bladderpod habitat (Thomas 1998).

        The current 63 extant sites have the following Natural Community rankings by The Nature Conservancy (TNC): (1) 11 (10 in Missouri and 1 in Arkansas) are graded A (i.e., are relatively stable and undisturbed natural communities with a high diversity of conservative species); (2) 18 (all in Missouri) are graded B (i.e., late successional or lightly disturbed communities, or recently lightly disturbed or moderately disturbed in the past but now recovered, and the biological diversity has not been greatly reduced); (3) 1 in Arkansas is graded AB (i.e., intermediate between A and B); (4) 17 in Missouri are graded C (i.e., midsuccessional, moderately to heavily disturbed communities, or moderate recent disturbance or heavy past disturbance with decreased recent disturbance); and (5) 16 in Missouri are graded D (i.e., early successional or severely disturbed communities where the structure and composition of the community has been severely altered with few characteristic native species present) (MDC 2002a, Theo Witsell, in litt. 2002).

        Threats identified by the Service at the time of listing (52 FR 679, January 8, 1987) were: (1) Vulnerability of small populations to overcollecting and human disturbance, (2) lack of research on proper management techniques necessary to maintain and promote populations of the species, (3) potential impacts of annual maintenance activities to populations located on highway rights-of-way, (4) seed destruction by insects and fungal infections, and (5) inadequate protection or management on public and private property necessary for the species' continued existence. Subsequently, the Service (1988) documented the presence of exotic plant species, such as Bromus tectorum (a cheat grass), in bladderpod habitat as a significant threat, and this was further supported by observations by Hickey (1988, 2000) and Thomas (1996, 1998). Additionally, Hickey (1988, 2000) and Thomas (1996) identified development, especially land-use changes resulting from urban expansion, as a major threat to the species, and Hickey (1988) noted an increase in grazing pressure at some of the sites discovered during a four-county survey.
        Although no specific reclassification (endangered to threatened) criteria were provided in the Recovery Plan, the following recovery (delisting) criteria were given: 30 self-sustaining populations, 15 of which are in secure ownership, must be at least one-half acre in size each and show self-sustaining populations for at least 7 years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). We indicated that these recovery goals could be accomplished through the following actions: (1) An inventory of suitable habitat for new populations, (2) the protection and management of existing populations, (3) the continued monitoring of populations and initiation of research on the species, (4) the development and initiation of management programs on protected sites, (5) the establishment of new populations on public land, and (6) the development of public awareness and support to further the conservation of the species.

        Although some information gaps concerning the life history requirements of Lesquerella filiformis remain, research conducted since the species was listed in 1987 has significantly improved our understanding of the ecological needs of this species. Dr. Michael Kelrick (Truman State University, MO) has conducted and supervised graduate student work on demographics, seed bank ecology, matrix population dynamics used in the development of a population model and protocol for long-term monitoring, analyses of the effectiveness of various management prescriptions utilized to restore and enhance bladderpod habitat, reproductive success, fecundity, and factors influencing germination, seedling establishment and vegetative growth, metapopulation dynamics, and genetic diversity within and between populations (e.g., Harms 1992; Graham 1994). Lisa Potter Thomas of the NPS at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield has also conducted extensive research on the species involving life history ecology (e.g., factors influencing survivorship, plant vigor, and reproduction); the potential impacts of human foot trampling on the species; techniques useful in controlling exotic plants in bladderpod habitat; an examination of microhabitat parameters; and demographic studies that centered on germination, density of flowering stems, survivorship, and fecundity (Thomas and Jackson 1990; Thomas and Willson 1992; Thomas 1996, 1998).
        Other recommended research and recovery activities include: (1) Investigating the pollination ecology of the species; (2) revising the Recovery Plan objective established in 1988 to reflect the current knowledge of the species; (3) securing funding to provide necessary information essential to complete recovery and to facilitate the removal of the species from the list of federally protected species; (4) evaluating the efficacy of different management techniques; and (5) assuring that threats such as urban development and competition from exotic plants, both of which result from rapid population growth and urbanization, do not increase (The Nature Conservancy 2002; Hickey 1988; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988; Thomas and Jackson 1990; Thomas 1996).
        Previous Federal Actions

        Section 12 of the Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report, within 1 year after passage of the Act, on those plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct. This report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, the Director of the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of his acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) of the Act (petition acceptance is now governed by section 4(b)(3) of the Act, as amended), and of his intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named within. Lesquerella filiformis was named in the Smithsonian report as endangered and was included in the Service's 1975 notice of review. A subsequent notice of review published in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 82480) included L. filiformis as a Category 1 species, indicating that we believed there was sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list the species as endangered or threatened.

        The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982 required that all petitions, including the report of the Smithsonian Institution, still pending as of October 13, 1982, be treated as received on that date. Section 4(b)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, within 12 months of the receipt of such a petition, a finding be made as to whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other higher priority activities involving additions to or removals from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Therefore, on October 13, 1983; October 12, 1984; and again on October 11, 1985, the Service made the finding that listing of Lesquerella filiformis was warranted but precluded by other pending listing activities. The proposed rule to list L. filiformis as endangered was published on April 7, 1986 (51 FR 11874), and the final rule was published on January 8, 1987 (52 FR 679). The Recovery Plan was approved on April 7, 1988 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988).

        In letters dated January 26 and February 17, 1998, the Service received a petition from the MDC to reclassify Lesquerella filiformis from endangered to threatened. On March 18, 1998, we responded and indicated that, based on our Listing Priority Guidance issued on October 23, 1997, we could not address the petition until we completed other higher priority listing actions. The Act requires us to make certain findings on petitions to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, remove species from the List, or change their designation on the List. This proposed rule constitutes both our 90-day finding that the petitioned action may be warranted and our 12-month finding that the action is warranted.
        Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

        Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures for determining whether to add, reclassify, or remove a species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants using five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to Lesquerella filiformis Rollins (Missouri bladderpod) are as follows:
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
        At the time of listing, Lesquerella filiformis was known to occur at only nine locations in Dade, Greene, and Christian Counties, MO. As described in the BACKGROUND section, surveys and research since that time have documented 63 extant sites. Currently, this species is known to occur at a total of 61 sites in 4 counties in Missouri and 2 sites in 2 counties in Arkansas. Of these, 30 have a TNC Nature Community Rank of A, B, or AB.

        Taking into consideration annual fluctuations in population, the estimated total number of plants known in Missouri has increased from approximately 550 plants in 1980 (Morgan 1980) to a potential maximum of 400,000-500,000 plants when climatic and edaphic conditions are ideal for germination, overwinter survival, seedling establishment, growth, and seed production. Additionally, a maximum of “tens of thousands” of plants have been reported at the Izard County, AR, site (Theo Witsell, in litt. 2002). Given that the 2 sites in Arkansas are separated by approximately 150 miles and are about 85-100 miles from the nearest location in southwestern Missouri, the possibility exists that additional populations of Lesquerella filiformis are yet to be discovered in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas, especially because the Izard County, AR, site is partially dolomitic, a geological feature previously not targeted for surveys in Missouri.

        In addition, the threat of habitat loss has been reduced by the acquisition and management of occupied sites by public land management agencies and TNC (Table 2). The MDC and TNC successfully protected one of the largest known sites, Rocky Barrens in Greene County, MO, by purchasing a total of 281 acres of occupied habitat between 1988 and 1993. Another five sites in Missouri are under public ownership or a long-term conservation agreement, including approximately 29 acres at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield in Christian and Greene Counties; 3 acres at the Nathan Boone State Historic Site in Greene County; and approximately 40 acres at the Bois D'Arc Conservation Area in Greene County, an MDC property. Additionally, TNC has secured a 100-year lease to manage 47 acres of bladderpod habitat at South Greenfield Glade in Dade County, MO (Beth Churchwell, TNC, pers. comm. 2000).

            Table 2.—Beneficial Activities To Enhance Missouri Bladderpod Sites Under Public Ownership Or A Long-Term Easement Agreement

            Site
            Managing agency

            Acreage
            Management activities
            Other conservation activities

            Wilson's Creek National Battlefield
            National Park Service
            4 sites, ~29 acres
            Control of woody vegetation, exotic grasses, and sericea lespedeza using a variety of methods, including prescribed burning, mechanical removal, and reducing foot traffic impacts
            Ongoing monitoring and demographics; life history and micro-habitat studies; public outreach and education.

            Rocky Barrens Conservation Area
            Missouri Department of Conservation
            191 acres
            Control of woody vegetation and exotic grasses using prescribed burning and mechanical removal
            Ongoing monitoring; public outreach and education; support of various research projects.

            Rocky Barrens
            The Nature Conservancy
            90 acres
            Control of woody vegetation and exotic grasses using prescribed burning and mechanical removal
            Ongoing monitoring; public outreach and education; support of various research projects.

            Bois D'Arc Conservation Area
            Missouri Department of Conservation
            40 acres
            Control of woody vegetation and exotic grasses using prescribed burning and mechanical removal
            Ongoing monitoring; public outreach and education.

            Nathan Boone State Historic Site
            Missouri Department of Natural Resources
            3 acres
            Control of woody vegetation and exotic grasses using prescribed burning; fencing to eliminate cattle from occupied habitat
            Ongoing monitoring; planned development of interpretative program.

            South Greenfield
            The Nature Conservancy
            47 acres
            Control of woody vegetation and exotic grasses using prescribed burning and mechanical removal
            Ongoing monitoring and floristic inventories of associated species.

        The MDNR, MDC, TNC, and Wilson's Creek National Battlefield have undertaken various management activities to further the conservation of the species (Table 2). Management techniques that have been effective in enhancing bladderpod habitat include prescribed burning, chainsawing, and bulldozing to control the encroachment of woody vegetation such as red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and exotic plants such as annual brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), rerouting hiking trails to reduce potential impact from foot traffic, and installing fencing to exclude cattle from occupied habitat (Table 2).
        In particular, prescribed burning is a highly beneficial technique to improve bladderpod habitat. In 1988, an estimated 1,500 plants were counted at Rocky Barrens Conservation Area (Hickey 1988), and 2,000 plants were determined to occur on the same site in 1992 (MDC 2002a). In August 1993, MDC conducted a controlled burn on the area (Figg and Priddy 1994), and over 50,000 plants were estimated in May 1994 (MDC 2002a). The species responded similarly at the same site in the spring of 1997 and 1998, following controlled burns in August 1996 (Figg and Davit 1997) and 1997. MDC botanist Tim Smith estimated that the population at the site in May 1998 contained “tens of thousands” of plants (MDC 2002a).
        Additional protection and management of bladderpod habitat has occurred through TNC's Registry Program. Between 1986 and 1996, nine sites in Christian, Dade, and Greene Counties were added to the organization's Registry Program. Under this program, private landowners have an agreement with TNC to protect Missouri bladderpod sites to the best of their ability and to notify TNC regarding any new threats to the species or its habitat or if the landowner plans to sell the property. Additionally, TNC personnel assist private landowners by providing management suggestions, including the development of site-specific plans, and by notifying them of various landowner incentive programs that promote Best Management Practices. Best Management Practices developed by MDC (2000) include surveys for bladderpod and bladderpod habitat, controlling the encroachment of eastern red cedars and exotic species onto glade habitat through mechanical cutting and prescribed fire, avoiding the use of nonspecific herbicides between October and July in occupied bladderpod habitat, and avoiding heavy grazing or grazing during flowering and fruiting periods (March-July) (Susanne Greenlee, TNC, pers. comm. 1998).
        In 1998, the Service provided funding to TNC to enhance 90 acres of degraded bladderpod habitat on Rocky Barrens Conservation Area in Greene County. Missouri bladderpod habitat was improved by prescribed fire and cutting of invasive eastern red cedar trees. Although a thorough estimate of Missouri bladderpod plants has not yet been possible on the managed area since these restoration efforts were conducted in 1998, flowering plants were observed at the location in 1999 (Doug Ladd, TNC, pers. comm. 2000).
        Potential impacts to populations of Lesquerella filiformis on rights-of-way maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) was another threat identified at the time of listing (52 FR 679, January 8, 1987) and also when the Recovery Plan was completed for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Education programs within the MODOT have significantly reduced the potential impact of mowing or chemical treatment of highway rights-of-way. Maintenance supervisors who work within the range of Missouri bladderpod in Missouri have been alerted to the location of extant populations and have been trained in the identification and habitat needs of the species. Consequently, most maintenance activities that may impact the species are avoided. In situations where potential impacts are unavoidable, MODOT, as a designated representative for the Federal Highway Administration, initiates consultation with the Service and further discusses such activities with the MDC to minimize these impacts (Gene Gardner, MODOT, pers. comm. 2000).
        The expansion of the exotic brome grasses Bromus tectorum L. and B. sterilis L. has been identified by some as a potential threat to the Missouri bladderpod (The Nature Conservancy 2002; Hickey 1988; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988; Thomas and Jackson 1990; Thomas 1996; Hickey 2000). Thomas and Jackson (1990), however, indicated that exotic species of Bromus spp. can be controlled with a combination of management techniques. While such management is undoubtedly labor-intensive, and continued monitoring of this threat is warranted, there is no solid evidence to date that these exotic grasses have eliminated populations of Lesquerella filiformis, especially in areas that are regularly managed by techniques such as prescribed fire. Nonetheless, further research on the potential adverse impacts of brome grasses to Missouri bladderpod is clearly warranted.
        The glade and other rocky habitats where Lesquerella filiformis is found were probably maintained historically by fires. The cessation or significant reduction in the number of fires occurring on glades in the last few centuries has enabled woody vegetation, such as red cedar, to encroach onto bladderpod habitat. The encroachment of such woody vegetation onto glades occupied by Lesquerella filiformis has been frequently listed as a threat to this species' continued existence (Hickey 1988; Thomas and Jackson 1990; Thomas 1996; The Nature Conservancy 2002). Recent research by MDC and TNC at the Rocky Barrens Conservation Area and Preserve in Greene County, MO, has provided strong evidence that this species responds well on glades that have been cleared of woody vegetation by the combination of cedar tree removal and the use of controlled fires (Figg and Davit 1997). Prescribed burns have been conducted on six sites under public ownership with positive results (Table 2). This management tool may be used at additional bladderpod sites.
        Grazing and haying are potential threats to Missouri bladderpod populations under private ownership (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Overgrazing may impact small populations of the plant, but minor grazing actually enhances these populations (MDC 1997). Presently, there are no known incidents where haying has been a threat to existing Missouri bladderpod populations.
        The poor, rocky, thin soils over bedrock make bladderpod habitat nonconducive to increases in agricultural development within the species' range in Missouri. Hickey (2000) reported that one population was destroyed by construction of a putting green on a golf course and another was destroyed as a result of residential construction. Thus, as discussed by Hickey (1988, 2000) and Thomas (1996), the species' habitat is threatened most by urban/suburban expansion and development.
        The Service, TNC, and all public land management agencies with extant sites on lands under their jurisdiction have been actively involved in various aspects of public outreach and education associated with Missouri bladderpod. These include developing landowner contact programs, producing educational brochures, and holding identification and ecology workshops on the species. In 1995, MDC published a new brochure for the Rocky Barrens Conservation Area that highlighted Missouri bladderpod. In the same year, MDC conducted an identification workshop for employees of the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Williams Pipeline Company in Springfield, MO. This workshop was extremely productive as it led to the discovery of a previously unknown site of Missouri bladderpods along a powerline right-of-way in Greene County. In February 1997, MDC published an Endangered Species Guide Sheet for Missouri bladderpod and distributed it to private individuals and public agency employees through MDC, TNC, NRCS, and the University of Missouri Extension Service. The brochure provided information on identification, life history requirements, habitat, distribution, causes of historic decline, current threats to the species, and management guidelines that would contribute to bladderpod recovery.

        Public outreach materials developed for Missouri bladderpod include a Best Management Practice Guide Sheet distributed by MDC (2000) that outlines suggested management practices for projects that could potentially impact the species identified by MDC during environmental reviews. A public information endangered species card was published by the Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri (1999). The species was also highlighted in two separate issues of MDC's Missouri Conservationist (June 1995 and February 1999) involving endangered species.

        In 1992, MDC and the Service cooperated in a landowner contact program involving 25 private landowners with extant populations of Lesquerella filiformis in an approximately 5-square-mile area in Greene County, MO. The purpose of the program was to educate the landowners on the habitat needs of Missouri bladderpod and to suggest compatible land management techniques that would benefit the species. Over 80 percent of the people contacted responded favorably to the protection and management of the bladderpod and its habitat (Amy Salveter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000).

        Although great progress has been made toward the recovery of Lesquerella filiformis, the species is still threatened by urban/suburban expansion and development and encroachment of invasive woody plants and exotic pasture grasses. The recent discoveries in northeastern Arkansas indicate that additional surveys in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas are warranted. Additionally, population estimates at all extant sites in Missouri in one year have not been undertaken since observations made by Hickey (1988). Extended demographic analyses conducted by Thomas (1996), Kelrick (2001a, 2001b), and Smith (in litt. 2002) strongly suggest that a well-established long-term monitoring program is necessary to accurately detect population trends.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        At the time of listing, overcollecting by botanists and flower garden enthusiasts was considered a threat to the species' continued existence. Although Steyermark (1963) indicated that Missouri bladderpod is a desirable addition to rock gardens, and the Service postulated that the species may be vulnerable to overcollection at the time of listing (52 FR 679, January 8, 1987), there is no evidence to date that such activities have taken place. Additionally, given the large number of currently known extant sites (61 in Missouri and 2 in Arkansas), adverse impacts from overcollecting by wildflower enthusiasts or botanical collectors is extremely unlikely, even during years when the number of flowering individuals is low. Overutilization is no longer believed to pose a distinct threat to this species.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Morgan (1983) studied one population of Lesquerella filiformis at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield in Greene County, MO, and determined that insect predation and fungal infection damaged seed set. Although there may be a concern for such impacts during low population levels, it is likely that Missouri bladderpod has adapted to such natural influences and the species is probably well buffered against these natural occurrences at more robust population levels. To date, there is no evidence that these agents are exotic to the species' habitat, or that naturally occurring incidents of disease or predation have contributed to a recent decline in any of the known extant populations.

        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        The MDC recently adopted the conservation status ranking system developed by NatureServe, TNC, and the Natural Heritage Network for global (G ranks) and State (S ranks) rankings for all State- and federally-listed species in Missouri (Missouri Natural Heritage Program 2001). Lesquerella filiformis is officially listed in Missouri as rare and uncommon, with a ranking of S3 (rare and uncommon in the State; 21 to 100 occurrences), and G2 (imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction; typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres). This species is also listed in the Wildlife Code of Missouri (MDC 2002b). Species listed in the Wildlife Code of Missouri under 3CSR10-4.111 are protected by State Endangered Species Law 252.240. Missouri regulations prohibit the exportation, transportation, or sale of plants on the State or Federal lists. A small percentage of Missouri's populations of Missouri bladderpod occur on lands either administered by MDC, MDNR, NPS, or TNC. These agencies prohibit the removal of this plant from their properties without a collector's permit.
        Currently, Lesquerella filiformis is State-listed in Arkansas as S1 (critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State; typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals; Theo Witsell, in litt. 2002) but receives no additional protection other than those specified under the Act (John Logan, pers. comm. 1998).
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

        Various human disturbances were considered as threats to the species at the time Lesquerella filiformis was listed in 1987 (52 FR 679, January 8, 1987). Thomas and Willson (1992) examined the potential impact of trampling on a population at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield and noted that the species' survival decreased by 42 percent when subjected to the highest level of trampling intensity. Although the number of populations of L. filiformis on public areas that receive high levels of trampling are few in number, precautions will need to be taken in the future to protect Missouri bladderpod habitat at such locations. Other studies and observations, however, suggest that this species actually benefits from low to moderate levels of human-induced disturbance that reduce woody encroachment and stimulate seed bank germination through soil disturbance (MDC 1997; Jerry Conley, MDC, in litt. 1998). Excessive disturbance from trampling, overgrazing by livestock, and significant alterations of glade habitat through the use of ground-moving equipment could become increased threats to the species in the future and should be closely monitored.
        Summary of Status

        Under the Act, an endangered species is defined as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as one that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Given that (1) Lesquerella filiformis now occurs at 61 sites in Missouri and 2 sites in Arkansas (an increase of 54 sites since listing); (2) 6 sites in Missouri are under public ownership or under a long-term conservation agreement and are managed to benefit the species; (3) 9 additional sites in Missouri receive some degree of protection as part of TNC's Registry Program; (4) the species responds well to the proper management of its habitat, especially cedar tree removal and controlled burning; (5) minor levels of disturbance may actually benefit rather than hinder the species; and (6) significant knowledge has been gained regarding the life history requirements and population dynamics of the species, we no longer believe that this species meets the definition of an endangered species.
        Although there has been a considerable increase in the number of known populations, an expansion of the known range of the species, and a sizeable increase in the number of known individual plants, the Missouri bladderpod has not recovered to the point that it can be removed (delisted) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. These numerical increases are encouraging, and they provide evidence suggesting the species has exceeded the first delisting criterion, which requires 30 self-sustaining populations. However, the delisting criteria also require that 15 of the populations must be in secure ownership, be at least one-half acre in size, and show self-sustaining populations for at least 7 years. At this time, fewer than 10 populations can be considered to be in secure ownership, and only 3 of these populations have been monitored for at least 7 years. Although acreage of these secured populations is large, because of the year-to-year population fluctuations demonstrated by this species, at this time we can document that only one of these three populations is viable and self-sustaining for at least 7 years. Therefore, we believe delisting this species would be premature.
        Consequently, on the basis of our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we propose to reclassify the Missouri bladderpod from endangered to threatened under the Act.
        Available Conservation Measures
        Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery plans be developed for all listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants are discussed below.
        Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us.

        The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened plants. With respect to Lesquerella filiformis, all prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of violating State criminal trespass law. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plants are exempt from these prohibitions provided that their containers are marked “Of Cultivated Origin.” Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to our agents and State conservation agencies.

        The Act and 50 CFR 17.72 also provide for the issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. For threatened plants, permits also are available for botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purpose of the Act. We anticipate that few trade permits would ever be sought or issued for Lesquerella filiformis because the plant is not in cultivation or common in the wild.
        This rule proposes to change the status of Lesquerella filiformis at 50 CFR 17.12 from endangered to threatened. If made final, this rule would formally recognize that this species is no longer in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Collection, damage, or destruction of threatened plants on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a Federal endangered species permit may be issued to allow collection. Such activities on non-Federal lands would constitute a violation of section 9, if conducted in knowing violation of State law or regulations or in violation of State criminal trespass law. Section 7 of the Act would still continue to protect this species from Federal actions that would jeopardize its continued existence. We are not aware of any otherwise lawful activities being conducted or proposed by the public that will be affected by application of section 9 to this listing.

        Finalization of this rule will not be an irreversible action on the part of the Service. Reclassifying Lesquerella filiformis to endangered may be considered if changes occur in management, habitat, or other factors that negatively alter the species' status or increase threats to its survival.

        Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's Columbia Field Office (see the ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed plants and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and issuance of permits under the Act may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BHW Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111 (phone 612/713-5350, facsimile 612/713-5292).
        Public Comments Solicited

        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. In some circumstances, we will withhold a respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety (see
          ADDRESSES section). Comments are particularly sought concerning:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
        (2) The location of any additional populations of this species;
        (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
        (4) Current or planned activities in the subject range and their possible impacts on the species.
        In promulgating a final regulation on this species, we will take into consideration the comments and additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this proposal.
        Public Hearing

        The Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be filed by the date specified in the DATES section above. Such requests must be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Peer Review
        In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed reclassification of Lesquerella filiformis.

        Required Determinations
        Executive Order 12866

        Executive Order 12866 requires each Federal agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal (e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposal easier to understand to Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also send the comments by e-mail to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

        Paperwork Reduction Act

        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid control number. Implementation of this rule does not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. For additional information concerning permit and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.72.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, is available upon request from the Service's Columbia, MO, Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Author

        The primary author of this proposed rule is Paul M. McKenzie, Ph.D. (see
          ADDRESSES section).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of Chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

          2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by revising the entry for “Lesquerella filiformis” under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:

            § 17.12
            Endangered and threatened plants.

            (h) * * *

                Species
                Scientific name
                Common name
                Historic range
                Family
                Status
                When listed
                Critical habitat
                Special rules

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

                  Flowering Plants

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

                  Lesquerella filiformis

                Missouri bladderpod
                U.S.A. (AR, MO)
                Brassicaceae
                T
                253,_
                NA
                NA

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            Dated: April 16, 2003.
            Steve Williams,
            Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-14355 Filed 6-9-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 031217320-3320-01; I.D. 112403D]
        RIN 0648-AR66
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Extension of Marine Reserves

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 21) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council).  These proposed regulations would modify the fishing restrictions that apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and would extend the period of effectiveness of those restrictions through June 16, 2010.  The intended effect of these proposed regulations is to protect the spawning aggregations of species within these areas, prevent overfishing, and aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of marine reserves as a management tool.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on February 19, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          Copies of Amendment 21, which includes a regulatory impact review (RIR), Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, and an environmental assessment (EA), and a copy of a minority report filed by three Council members opposing provisions in the amendment that allow seasonal surface trolling within the reserves, may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, The Commons at Rivergate, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619-2266; telephone:  813-228-2815; fax:  813-225-7015; e-mail:   gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.  Copies of Amendment 21 can also be downloaded from the Council's website at www.gulfcouncil.org.
          Copies of a supplement to the RIR and EA, and copies of a supplementary RIR and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, may be obtained from Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702; telephone:  727-570-5305, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail:   phil.steele@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Phil Steele, telephone:   727-570-5305, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail:   phil.steele@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP.  The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        The Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps are located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and encompass a total area of approximately 219 square nautical miles (751 km2).  The boundaries of the two areas are:

          Madison and Swanson sites

            NW corner
            29°17′ N. lat., 85°50′ W. long.

            NE corner
            29°17′ N. lat., 85°38′ W. long.

            SW corner
            29°06′ N. lat., 85°50′ W. long.

            SE corner
            29°06′ N. lat., 85°38′ W. long.

          Steamboat Lumps

            NW corner
            28°14′ N. lat., 84°48′ W. long.

            NE corner
            28°14′ N. lat., 84°37′ W. long.

            SW corner
            28°03′ N. lat., 84°48′ W. long.

            SW corner
            28°03′ N. lat., 84°37′ W. long.

        These two areas include important reef fish habitat in the dominant region where gag spawning aggregations are known to occur.  These areas were originally established as marine reserves in June 2000 as part of a regulatory amendment intended to address concerns about overfishing of the gag stock, a substantial decline in the proportion of male gag in the gag population, and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of marine reserves as a management tool.  The final rule implementing the regulatory amendment (65 FR 31827, May 19, 2000) prohibited all fishing, except fishing for highly migratory pelagic species (HMS)(billfish, sharks, swordfish and tunas other than blackfin tuna), within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps for a 4-year period ending June 16, 2004.
        Provisions of This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would modify the fishing restrictions that apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves and would extend the period of effectiveness of those restrictions through June 16, 2010.  Specifically, within these marine reserves, this proposed rule would:   (1) prohibit the possession of Gulf reef fish year-round, except for possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; (2) during November through April, prohibit all fishing and possession of any fish species, with exceptions for HMS species and for fish possessed aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; and (3) during May through October, restrict fishing activity to surface trolling only.
        For the purpose of these provisions, “transit” would mean non-stop progression through the area; “fishing gear appropriately stowed” would mean -
        (A) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks are disconnected and stowed below deck.  Hooks cannot be baited.  All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on deck.
        (B) A trawl net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be disconnected from the trawl gear and must be secured.
        (C) A gillnet must be left on the drum.  Any additional gillnets not attached to the drum must be stowed below deck.
        (D) A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed securely on or below deck.  Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) must be disconnected and stowed separately from the rod and reel.  Sinkers must be disconnected from the down rigger and stowed separately.
        For the purpose of these provisions, “surface trolling” would mean fishing with lines trailing behind a vessel which is in constant motion at speeds in excess of four knots with a visible wake.  Such trolling may not involve the use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.
        In structuring these modified provisions, the Council and NMFS carefully considered concerns expressed by members of the public and others regarding both the need to limit restrictions on fishing activities to those essential for protecting gag and other reef fish species and the need to avoid measures that would unduly compromise adequate enforcement.  The resulting provisions represent a reasoned balance between those somewhat conflicting objectives.  If Amendment 21 is approved and implemented, the Council and NMFS would monitor the effectiveness of these measures with respect to achievement of the purposes of the marine reserves as well as adequate enforceability.  Any necessary adjustments could be made through a timely regulatory framework procedure that would involve additional rulemaking and opportunity for public comment.
        Request for Complementary Restrictions for Highly Migratory Species (HMS)

        The Council has requested that NMFS' HMS Division implement restrictions regarding HMS that would complement the restrictions in this proposed rule.  Specifically, the Council requested that fishing for HMS be prohibited within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves, except for surface trolling during May through October.  If NMFS concurs, such restrictions would be implemented through separate rulemaking, including the opportunity for public comment.  If Amendment 21 is approved and NMFS implements the requested HMS restrictions, 50 CFR 622.34(k) would be revised accordingly and would include a cross reference to the applicable HMS restrictions in 50 CFR part 635.
        Minority Report

        A minority report, signed by three Council members, opposed the provision of Amendment 21 that would allow surface trolling during May through October.  Their objections included concerns that the measure was unenforceable and inconsistent with NMFS' policy to move toward ecosystem management; involved procedural irregularities at the July Council meeting; and would create a privileged class of fishermen (surface trollers) and, thus, was unfair to others.  Copies of the minority report are available (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 21, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on Amendment 21 and this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an IRFA, based on the RIR, for this proposed rule.  A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.  The proposed rule would extend the designation of the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps as marine reserves for another six years from the current sunset date of June 16, 2004.  As an integral part of such designation, within the designated areas, the proposed rule would:   prohibit possession of Gulf reef fish, except for possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; during November through April, prohibit fishing for and possession of any fish species with exceptions for highly migratory species and for possession of fish aboard a vessel in transit with gear appropriately stowed; during May through October, allow only surface trolling; and require vessels transiting the marine reserves in possession of fish, subject to an exemption, to comply with gear stowage requirements.
        The objectives of the proposed rule are to provide continued protection to spawning aggregations for gag, male gag, and other species within the reserves.  A subsidiary objective of the proposed rule is to allow additional time for research to be conducted on the effectiveness of the two marine reserves as a fishery management tool.  The Council believes that the achievement of these objectives can be best accomplished through an extension of the marine reserve designation for another six years.
        The proposed rule would not impose any changes in record-keeping for affected entities.  Compliance requirements would change slightly by allowing the use of troll gear within the reserves and allowing vessels to transit the reserves.  These changes would mitigate revenue losses from fishing restrictions within the reserves and reduce travel costs for vessels passing through the reserves.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.  However, fishing restrictions within the reserves may pose coordination problems with respect to fishing provisions affecting highly migratory species.
        This proposed rule would impact both the commercial and recreational participants that traditionally harvested fish, provided recreational trips to the two areas, received fish harvested in the two areas, or would be expected to do so upon sunset of the current designation.
        The specific fishing activities that historically occurred within the two marine reserves are unknown, but some characteristics of fishing activities can be inferred from fishing activities conducted in Statistical Areas 6 and 8, where the marine reserves are located.  This approach likely overestimates the impacts of the proposed rule because participants would have adjusted their fishing patterns, but adjustments in the estimation procedures incorporating consideration of water depth have been introduced to partially address this problem.
        Of the 1,338 boats that reported in their logbooks to have landed fish in the Gulf of Mexico, 356 boats harvested fish in Statistical Areas 6 or 8.  These 356 boats include 59 vessels that harvest reef fish using fish traps.  These trap vessels are not believed to have historically operated in the marine reserve areas since they generally operate in shallower waters.  Of the 431 dealers that received fish from various vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, 87 dealers received fish that were harvested in Statistical Areas 6 or 8.  There are 1,515 for-hire vessels with Gulf reef fish or coastal migratory pelagics permits.  It cannot be determined, however, how many of these vessels actually fished in Statistical Areas 6 or 8.  The rule is, thus, expected to directly affect 356 commercial fishing vessels, 87 fish dealers/processors, and an unknown number of for-hire vessels.
        According to a survey of commercial fishing vessels, average gross receipts of vessels in the eastern Gulf (those that likely fished in Statistical Areas 6 or 8) ranged from $24,588 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $116,989 for high-volume longline vessels.  Also, according to a survey of reef fish processors in the Southeast, employment by reef fish processors totaled 700 individuals, both part and full time.  Given this number and the likelihood that fish dealers are generally of smaller size than processors, employment by any of the affected dealers is very likely to be less than 500 individuals.  Furthermore, according to a survey of for-hire vessels in Florida, average gross receipts for charterboats totaled $68,000 while that for headboats totaled $324,000.  A fishing business is considered a small entity if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, and if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities or $6 million in the case of for-hire entities, or if it has fewer than 500 employees in the case of fish processors, or fewer than 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.  Given these data on earnings and employment, all of the business entities directly affected by the rule are determined to be small business entities.

        Assuming alternative sources of revenue have not been located during the current closure, the proposed rule is expected to continue to reduce total gross revenues of commercial fishing vessels by $352,000 annually based on pre-closure fishing information.  This represents approximately 1 percent to 4 percent of gross revenues if equally divided among the 356 affected vessels, or 2 percent to 5 percent if the 59 trap vessels are excluded from the universe of affected vessels.  The revenue and profit profile for dealers is not known.  The projected reduction in ex-vessel sales ($352,000) as a result of the proposed rule equals approximately 11 percent of total shallow-water grouper revenues generated from harvests in Statistical Areas 6 and 8.  It is unlikely, however, that any dealer with substantial business operations would be wholly dependent upon harvests from just these areas.  Although there is some information on the revenues of for-hire vessels, information on for-hire vessel profits is unavailable, and the extent of for-hire vessel participation within the marine reserves is unknown. It is, therefore, not possible to provide even a general estimate of the impacts of the two marine reserves on the revenues and profits of for-hire vessels.
        A general characteristic of economic impacts of the proposed rule shared by all affected small entities is that under the proposed rule they would likely shoulder lower costs than under current fishing restrictions because the proposed rule would allow surface trolling within the two reserves for the months of May through October and would allow commercial and recreational vessels to transit the reserves.
        Seven alternatives were considered for the continuation of the two marine reserves.  The alternatives differ mainly on the sunset date of the marine reserve designation, with four alternatives identifying a specific sunset date and three alternatives establishing an indefinite sunset date.  For any given set of fishing restrictions accompanying the continuation of the marine reserve designation, forgone revenues and profits are greatest with the longest time horizon.  It is not possible to determine the relative impacts of the alternatives that specify an indeterminate duration.  With respect to those alternatives that have specific time durations, two alternatives provide shorter time horizons and two provide longer time horizons than the proposed alternative.  Costs to small entities would be reduced under the no-extension or 4-year extension alternatives, whereas costs would increase under the longer extensions.  The shorter extensions, however, would not provide sufficient time to assess the effects of the two marine reserves as a management tool and would not, therefore, achieve the Council's objectives.
        There are six alternatives to the proposed alternative that would establish harvest restrictions in the reserves.  In terms of impacts on revenues of small entities, these alternatives may be grouped into two groups, with the proposed alternative falling approximately in the middle of the two groups with regards to fishing restrictions.  The proposed alternative provides for a middle-of-the-road approach with respect to trolling by allowing this gear to be used within the reserves for six months of the year.  Four alternatives are more restrictive than the proposed alternative and would not reduce the adverse impacts.  Two alternatives are less restrictive than the proposed alternative and would allow trolling year-round.  These alternatives would reduce the negative impacts on small entities but would possibly interfere with the Council's goal of protecting spawning aggregations of gag during key spawning months.  Prohibition of all trolling, however, was determined to be excessive.  The proposed alternative, therefore, is expected to best achieve the Council's objectives at the lowest possible cost.
        There are two alternatives to the proposed alternative on seasonal duration of the proposed fishing restrictions.  These two alternatives would limit the applicability of fishing restrictions.  Limiting the seasonal duration of the fishing restrictions would reduce the negative effects of the fishing restrictions within the reserves.  However, reducing the seasonal duration of the fishing restrictions reduces the protection of the stocks and, therefore, would not achieve the Council's objectives.
        Copies of the RIR and IRFA are available (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and  recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated:  December 29, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 622 FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

          1.  The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2.  In § 622.34, paragraph (k) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.34
            Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

            (k) Closure provisions applicable to the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps.  The Madison and Swanson sites are bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

                Point
                North lat.
                West long.

                A
                29°17′
                85°50′

                B
                29°17′
                85°38′

                C
                29°06′
                85°38′

                D
                29°06′
                85°50′

                A
                29°17′
                85°50′

              Steamboat Lumps is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

                Point
                North lat.
                West long.

                A
                28°14′
                84°48′

                B
                28°14′
                84°37′

                C
                28°03′
                84°37′

                D
                28°03′
                84°48′

                A
                28°14′
                84°48′

            The following provisions apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps through June 16, 2010.
            (1) Possession of Gulf reef fish is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear stowed as specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this section.
            (2) During November through April, all fishing is prohibited, and possession of any fish species is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear stowed as specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this section.  The provisions of this paragraph, (k)(2), do not apply to highly migratory species.
            (3) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, transit means non-stop progression through the area; fishing gear appropriately stowed means -
            (i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks are disconnected and stowed below deck.  Hooks cannot be baited.  All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on deck.
            (ii) A trawl net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be disconnected from the trawl gear and must be secured.
            (iii) A gillnet must be left on the drum.  Any additional gillnets not attached to the drum must be stowed below deck.
            (iv) A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed securely on or below deck.  Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) must be disconnected and stowed separately from the rod and reel.  Sinkers must be disconnected from the down rigger and stowed separately.
            (4) During May through October, surface trolling is the only allowable fishing activity.  For the purpose of this paragraph (k)(4), surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines trailing behind a vessel which is in constant motion at speeds in excess of four knots with a visible wake.  Such trolling may not involve the use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.

            (5) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, fish means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.  Highly migratory species means tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).

      [FR Doc. 04-89 Filed 1-2-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 379, 381, 385, 390, and 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3706]
        RIN 2126-AA76
        Hours of Service of Drivers; Supporting Documents SNPRM; Withdrawal

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA withdraws its November 3, 2004, SNPRM that proposed requirements for the collection and use of documents to verify the accuracy of driver records of duty status. The FMCSA intends to publish a new notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) at a later date.

          DATES:
          The SNPRM published on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 63997), is withdrawn as of October 25, 2007.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David Mancl, Team Leader, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone: (202) 493-0442. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The FMCSA regulates the number of hours that a driver of a commercial motor vehicle may drive and be on duty, the minimum length of rest periods between tours of duty, and weekly limits. Drivers must keep a log, called the “record of duty status” (RODS), that indicates their status (driving, on duty, not driving, off duty, or in a sleeper berth) for every day. These RODS are submitted to the motor carrier, which must retain them for six months.
        On November 28, 1982 (47 FR 53383), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (predecessor to FMCSA) promulgated a final rule that required a motor carrier to verify the accuracy of the hours of service (HOS) RODS of each driver and to ensure that drivers record their duty status in a specified format. The rule is codified in § 395.8 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Congress directed FHWA to revise the rule to improve both driver and carrier compliance and the effectiveness and efficiency of HOS enforcement, at a cost reasonable to the motor carrier industry (section 113(a) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (HMTAA) Public Law 103-311, August 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 1673 at 1676). Section 113(b) directs the Agency to specify the number, type, and frequency of “supporting documents”, that is documents used to verify the accuracy of driver RODS, that must be maintained as well as the identification items that must be a part of the documents.
        In response to section 113(a), FHWA published an NPRM on supporting documents in 1998 (63 FR 19457, April 20, 1998). The FMCSA included further proposals on supporting documents in its proposed rule on hours of service in 2000 (65 FR 25540, May 2, 2000). On November 3, 2004, FMCSA published an SNPRM proposing language to clarify the duties of motor carriers and drivers with respect to supporting documents, and requesting further comments on the issue (69 FR 63997).
        The SNPRM addressed self-monitoring systems, RODS, supporting documents for use in monitoring and enforcing the HOS, and definitions for “supporting documents” and “employee.” The FMCSA proposed requiring a motor carrier to maintain HOS supporting documents in a way that let the carrier or a Federal or State investigator readily connect the supporting documents to the RODS that they support. The FMCSA expected the proposed language would clarify a motor carrier's duties under current regulations and increase motor carrier compliance with this requirement. A carrier's “self-monitoring system” would be the primary method a motor carrier would use to ensure drivers' compliance with the HOS regulations. The SNPRM listed documents that could serve as supporting documents.
        Discussion of Comments
        The FMCSA received 197 comments in response to the SNPRM. Comments were received from for-hire and private motor carriers, trade associations, a State enforcement agency, safety advocacy groups, an insurance group, a driving school, wireless equipment businesses, and individuals. Commenters expressed concerns about varying aspects of the proposed rule. The following is a summary of the main comments.
        Documentation
        Some commenters seemed to have misconstrued the list of supporting documents examples, and they were concerned about the number and quality of supporting documents proposed in the SNPRM. Some commenters believed FMCSA expected motor carriers to have access to or generate all or most of the documents listed. They also stated that many of the examples on the list did not provide data that could be used to verify RODS. Some commenters noted that short-haul operators did not have access to or generate many of the documents listed in the SNPRM. Several commenters noted that small motor carriers could have been at a disadvantage during an audit because they do not maintain a large number of documents with which to reconcile RODS. One association stated that the proposed rule violated drivers' privacy rights. Other commenters were concerned that failure to maintain all documents that supported drivers' RODS would constitute a violation of the proposed rule.
        Self-Monitoring System
        Commenters were concerned about the lack of specificity in defining the concept of a “self-monitoring system.” Some commenters suggested that the use of statistically valid methods of sampling RODS and their supporting documents should indicate an adequate system. Some commenters objected to the use of a 10-percent failure rate in assessing a self-monitoring system because there was no rationale for that percentage.
        Burden
        Many commenters contended that the requirement to verify, inspect, and maintain all records generated by a driver was unrealistic and burdensome, particularly for small motor carriers. Some commenters stated that FMCSA's assertion that the proposed rule imposed minimal burdens on compliant motor carriers was incorrect and vastly underestimated the actual paperwork burden. Commenters believed the proposed rule was vague and would require them to retain records they did not keep and to devote inordinate amounts of staff time to linking supporting documents to RODS. Drivers, particularly owner-operators operating under leases, complained that they would have to make copies of documents that they need for other purposes so that they could submit the documents to a motor carrier. Motor carriers would also have had to retain multiple copies of some documents because they are needed for other purposes. Some commenters stated that if the records were retained electronically, a requirement to link electronic records to a driver's RODS would entail considerable reprogramming of existing systems. Some commenters indicated that the proposed rule would unfairly burden smaller motor carriers who did not need an electronic tracking system. Cost estimates submitted by a few commenters far exceeded those presented by FMCSA.
        Other Issues
        Some commenters recommended the use of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) in place of supporting documents. Other commenters objected to the use of EOBRs. A substantial number of commenters objected to the definition of supporting documents as being too broad. Some commenters were concerned that FMCSA would require both paper and electronic records. A number of commenters stated the proposed rule did not meet the statutory criteria for supporting documents as defined in the HMTAA.

        Other commenters were concerned that applications for exemptions would overwhelm FMCSA resources. Some commenters were worried that the exemptions would be routinely granted, thereby undermining the usefulness of the rule. Commenters raised issues related to the application of the rule and its enforcement; they questioned whether it was fair to cite a motor carrier for a driver's RODS violations when the carrier had identified and disciplined the driver for those violations. A number of commenters raised concerns about copies of records and documents, location of records, and the retention period, reflecting confusion and uncertainty about the proposed document collection and retention requirements. Commenters also made suggestions about the definitions of “employee” and “falsification.”
        FMCSA Decision
        The FMCSA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking action. There are issues with the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) analysis supporting this action. In response to comments that the Agency's estimated information collection burden associated with the proposed rule significantly underestimated the actual burden the industry would confront, FMCSA reevaluated its analysis of the rule as required by the PRA. The Agency discovered that the PRA analysis proposed for this rule did not account for the supporting document collection and retention burdens associated with the existing driver RODS information collection requirements. This oversight initially occurred in the 1998 NPRM when the Agency relied upon the burden assessment conducted for the 1982 Drivers Log Rule, which captured the paperwork burden for maintaining driver logs but did not capture the burden of collecting and maintaining supporting documents. Accordingly, the Agency withdraws this rulemaking action in order to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the information collection burden associated with the existing supporting documents requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
        After the paperwork analysis that accurately identifies the information collection burden associated with the existing supporting documents requirements is complete, the Agency intends to initiate a new rulemaking action to comply with the requirements of Section 113 of the HMTAA. This will ensure that the new rulemaking proposal is based on an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the existing information collection inventory for supporting documents. It will further allow the opportunity for notice and comment on the rulemaking proposal without confusion associated with previous stages of this rulemaking action.

          Issued on: October 18, 2007.
          John H. Hill,
          Administrator.

       [FR Doc. E7-20980 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 071121736-7619-01]
        RIN 0648-AR78
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Experimental Permitting Process, Exempted Fishing Permits, and Scientific Research Activity

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS extends the public comment period on the proposed rule containing revised definitions for certain regulatory terms, and procedural and technical changes to the regulations addressing scientific research activities, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS has received a request to extend the comment period for the proposed rule beyond its current 90-day comment period. The extension of the comment period for an additional 15 days is intended to ensure that NMFS provides adequate time for fishery management councils, stakeholders and members of the public to comment on the proposed revisions. The comment deadline is extended from March 20, 2008, to April 4, 2008.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AR78, by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Jason Blackburn
          • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attn: EFP Comments

          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:
          Jason Blackburn at 301-713-2341, or by e-mail at jason.blackburn@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A proposed rule that covers NMFS' proposed revisions to the regulations addressing scientific research activities, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was published on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72657), with a comment period ending date of March 20, 2008. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, NMFS has decided to extend it for an additional 15 days through April 4, 2008.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 13, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-5425 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-417, MM Docket No. 01-53, RM-10040]
        Television Broadcast Service; Galesburg, IL

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Northwest Television, Inc., an applicant for a construction permit for a new TV station on channel 67 at Galesburg, Illinois, requesting the substitution of channel 53 for channel 67 at Galesburg. TV Channel 53 can be allotted to Galesburg, Illinois, in compliance with the of section 73.623(d) of the Commission's Rules with a zero offset at reference coordinates (41-18-45 W. and 90-22-45 N.). We will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of television channel 53 at Galesburg pursuant to the provisions outlined in the Commission's Public Notice, released November 22, 1999, DA 99-2605.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 16, 2001, and reply comments on or before May 1, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: George R. Borsari, Jr., Anne Thomas Paxson, Borsari & Paxson, 2021 L Street, NW., Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Northwest Television, Inc.).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-53, adopted February 20, 2001, and released February 21, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        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
          Television broadcasting.

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

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

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

            § 73.606
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of Television Allotments under Illinois is amended by removing TV Channel 67 and adding TV Channel 53 at Galesburg.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-4912 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U