        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT35
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To Reclassify the Pahrump Poolfish (Empetrichthys latos) From Endangered to Threatened Status

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49279), to reclassify the Pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos) from endangered to threatened status. We have determined that reclassification of this species at this time is not appropriate.

          ADDRESSES:
          The complete file for this action is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Southern Nevada Field Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert D. Williams, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502 (telephone: 775/861-6300; facsimile: 775/861-6301).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Pahrump poolfish, family Goodeidae, was discovered by Gilbert in 1893, but was incorrectly identified as the Ash Meadows killifish (Empetrichthys merriami). Miller (1948) later described the Pahrump poolfish as the Pahrump killifish (Empetrichthys latos latos), which historically occupied an isolated spring (Manse Spring) on private property known as Manse Ranch in the Pahrump Valley of southern Nye County, Nevada.

        When describing the Pahump killifish, Miller also identified two other subspecies occurring in isolated springs in Nye County, the Pahrump Ranch killifish (Empetrichthys latos pahrump) inhabiting Pahrump Spring, and the Raycraft Ranch killifish (E. l. concavus) occurring in Raycraft Spring. Both of these subspecies became extinct in the late 1950s as a result of introduced carp (Cyprinus spp.) and desiccation of the springs from groundwater pumping (Miller 1948; Deacon and Williams 1984; Miller et al. 1989).

        The only congener (member of the same genus) to these three subspecies, the Ash Meadows killifish, was documented by Gilbert (1893) and historically occupied numerous springs in nearby Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. This species was last seen in 1948 and is believed to have gone extinct in the early 1950s, likely as a result of habitat alteration, and competition with and predation by, introduced nonnative crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), black mollies (Mollienesia shenops), and bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) (Deacon and Nappe 1968; Soltz and Naiman 1978; Miller et al. 1989).
        The common name of the genus Empetrichthys has since been changed from killifish to poolfish (Robins et al. 1991). Also, because the Pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos latos) is now the only remaining representative of the species E. latos, the subspecies designation has been dropped; thus, the fish is currently known as the Pahrump poolfish (E. latos) (Robins et al. 1991; Eschmeyer 1998; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2002).
        The Pahrump poolfish (poolfish) is a small fish that obtains an average maximum length of 3 inches (76.2 millimeters), with females generally larger than males (Service 1980; Deacon 1984a, 1984b, 1984c). The poolfish has a slender, elongate body with dorsal and anal fins placed far back, a broad upturned mouth, a dark longitudinal streak (which tends to disappear in older, larger individuals), and an orange ring around the eyes. On average, there are 30 to 32 scales in the lateral series (scales found along the lateral line, which is a series of porelike openings along the sides of a fish), but the number may vary from as low as 29 to a high of 33 scales (Sigler and Sigler 1987; La Rivers 1994). Poolfish lack pelvic fins, but the dorsal, anal, and caudal fins are bright orange-yellow when the fish are in an environment of optimal temperature and dissolved oxygen (Selby 1977; Soltz and Naiman 1978). The pectoral fins of the species typically have 16 to 18 rays (Sigler and Sigler 1987). The body of the poolfish is generally greenish-brown with black mottling, but males may be silver-blue without mottling during the spawning season (Soltz and Naiman 1978; Service 1980).

          Transplant History: In 1975, poolfish were extirpated from their only known natural habitat, Manse Spring, as a result of desiccation of the spring from groundwater pumping and competition from nonnative goldfish (Deacon et al. 1964; J. Deacon, in litt. 1970). Anticipating the demise of the spring at Manse Ranch (Minckley and Deacon 1968), personnel from Federal and State agencies and academic institutions removed poolfish from Manse Spring during the early 1970s and transplanted poolfish to three locations in Nevada:
        1. Los Latos Pool along the Colorado River, near Lake Mohave in June 1970 (J. Deacon in litt. 1970);

        2. Corn Creek Springs on the Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR), Clark County in August 1971 (D. Lockard, Service, in litt. 1971); and
        3. Shoshone Ponds Natural Area, White Pine County, a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) native fish sanctuary in March 1972 (D. Lockard in litt. 1972; Mark Barber, BLM, in litt. 1987).
        Transplanted poolfish at Los Latos Pool were lost during floods in the late 1970s, and individuals were never replaced at this location. Poolfish at Shoshone Ponds Natural Area were lost to vandalism in 1974 when the water source was intentionally turned off. Modifications were made to the ponds' water system to try to prevent future vandalism, and the poolfish were replaced in August 1976 with fish from Corn Creek Springs (after a 1-year stay at a University of Nevada, Las Vegas holding facility) (Leroy McLelland, Nevada Division of Fish and Game (NDFG), in litt. 1976; Logan 1977; M. Barber in litt. 1987). In order to replace the lost Los Latos Pool population, a third population of poolfish was established in the irrigation reservoir at the State of Nevada's Spring Mountain Ranch State Park (State Park) in western Clark County. Poolfish from Corn Creek Springs were transplanted to the State Park location in June 1983 (Richard Haskins, NDFG, in litt. 1983).
        We approved the Pahrump Killifish Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) on March 17, 1980 (Service 1980). The Recovery Plan recommended the establishment of at least three populations of poolfish as the primary objective for the species' recovery efforts, preferably including a population at Manse Spring. The species is less likely to be threatened simultaneously at three or more separate sites than at a single location. The Recovery Plan also stated that the species could be considered for reclassification to threatened status when each of the three populations contained at least 500 adults for 3 years, and each habitat was free of immediate and potential threats. Poolfish could be considered for delisting if the three populations continued to exceed 500 individuals for an additional 3 years after reclassification.
        All three transplanted populations of poolfish reproduced successfully and thrived in their new habitats, and data indicated that these transplanted populations had maintained a minimum of 500 individuals between 1986 and 1993 (Nevada Department of Wildlife, NDOW, 1988a, 1988b; Sjoberg 1989; Heinrich 1991a, 1991b, 1993). With the three populations stable and secure on Federal and State lands, we published a proposed rule to downlist the poolfish from endangered to threatened status on September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49279).

        However, soon after the publication of the proposed rule, we learned that the Nevada Division of State Parks (NDSP) would receive funding for a project to drain and dredge accumulated sediment from the irrigation reservoir at the State Park to restore the reservoir's water storage capacity. We informed the NDSP of the proposed project's potential to adversely affect the poolfish population residing in the reservoir, and that the NDSP must obtain an incidental take permit from us, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Further action on the proposed rule was halted as the NDSP developed a habitat conservation plan (HCP) to apply for the permit.
        In 1995, the NDSP acquired a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us for the proposed modifications and future operation and maintenance of the irrigation reservoir at the State Park as described in the HCP. The permit remains in effect until the year 2025. Modifications to the reservoir in 1995 were completed without adversely affecting the poolfish population. Based on information from annual surveys utilizing mark and recapture methods, as well as informal visual surveys, the population remains stable at the State Park, and is currently the largest population of poolfish, estimated at 16,775 individuals (95 percent confidence interval) in 2003 (NDOW in litt. 1997, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b; NDOW 1999, 2000, 2001; B. Hobbs, NDOW, pers. comm. 2002; B. Hobbs, NDOW, pers. comm. 2003).
        In the late 1990s, the population of poolfish at Corn Creek Springs was lost to illegally introduced nonnative crayfish (NDOW 1999). The last three poolfish were found at Corn Creek Springs during summer surveys in 1998 and no other poolfish were captured during surveys in subsequent years (NDOW 1999, 2000). A new, isolated refugium for the poolfish was built at Corn Creek Springs in 2002. Thirty adult poolfish from the State Park population were introduced into the refugium in June 2003, with visual surveys in July 2003 revealing eight young in the refugium (NDOW in litt. 2003a). Another 30 adult poolfish were added to the refugium from the State Park population in August 2003, with additional introductions to the refugium planned for the near future (NDOW in litt. 2003a). The third poolfish population at the Shoshone Ponds Natural Area has historically remained stable since the 1980s with only natural population fluctuations affecting its status (NDOW in litt. 2003b). However, surveys in 2003 indicated a significant decrease in the population to less than 1,000 individuals. The cause for the decline is unknown and is currently being investigated (NDOW, in litt. 2003b).
        Previous Federal Action
        On March 11, 1967, the Pahrump poolfish (as the Pahrump killifish) was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa(c)). The species retained its endangered status with the passage of the Act. The Recovery Plan for this species was completed in 1980. On September 22, 1993, we proposed to reclassify the Pahrump poolfish from endangered to threatened status (58 FR 49279).
        Other Federal actions include section 7 consultations with the DNWR and the BLM regarding the potential effects of various actions on the poolfish populations within their respective jurisdictions. Consultations with the DNWR have included projects with actions having short-term adverse effects to the poolfish population at Corn Creek Springs, but with long-term benefits. These include chemical eradication of competing mosquitofish, and mechanical and chemical removal of emergent vegetation to preserve pond integrity. The BLM has consulted with us on the management of the Shoshone Ponds Natural Area, as well as prior to authorizing transfer of public lands in adjacent areas into private ownership under the Desert Land Entry Act. This act allows individuals to reclaim, irrigate, and cultivate arid and semiarid public lands. We have also issued several recovery permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to the NDOW and various academic institutions, authorizing take of the species for tasks identified in the Recovery Plan. Finally, we have previously allocated funds to the NDOW for conducting surveys of each poolfish population and may continue to do so in the future as funds are available, under section 6 of the Act.
        Summary of Comments

        With publication of the proposed rule on September 22, 1993, we requested that all interested parties submit factual reports, information, and comments that might contribute to the development of the final downlisting decision. We contacted appropriate State and Federal agencies, County and city governments, scientific organizations and authorities, and other interested parties, and requested them to comment. Following the publication of the proposed rule, we received two comments: one from the NDOW and the other from an individual, both supporting the reclassification, and neither raised any additional concerns.
        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 adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors, and their application to the Pahrump poolfish, are as follows:
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

          Current Range: Three separate populations of poolfish currently exist; however, only one is considered stable. Additionally, none of these populations currently occurs at Manse Spring, its native habitat. Establishing a population of poolfish at Manse Spring was identified as a high-priority objective of the Recovery Plan. However, recent residential development in and around Manse Ranch continues to modify the native habitat, and future residential and commercial development in the Pahrump Valley may limit the available water resources and preclude the opportunity to re-establish a poolfish population in this location.

          Excessive Groundwater Withdrawals: The most critical threat to the poolfish has historically been the destruction of habitat through groundwater withdrawals, as demonstrated by the desiccation of the only native habitat of the species. Adequate, reliable water sources are necessary to ensure that currently occupied ponds provide suitable habitat for the poolfish. Thus, long-term declines in spring flows due to groundwater pumping from areas surrounding existing poolfish habitat remain a threat to all the populations. Threats to water sources necessary for poolfish habitat have been minimized to the extent possible by the managing Federal and State agencies. For example, we filed for, and received, vested water rights at Corn Creek Springs from the State of Nevada that will ensure the water supply for the poolfish population at that location. In addition, the NDOW and the NDSP hold State appropriative water rights to the springs supporting the habitats at Shoshone Ponds Natural Area and the State Park, respectively.
        In the past, groundwater withdrawals were mainly done for agricultural activities. However, the present demand on limited water sources is to accommodate the growing human population and development in the arid desert of southern Nevada. The annual population growth in southern Nevada has been 7 percent per year since 1910, whereas growth in the United States during the same period has averaged only 1 percent per year (Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) 2002). Southern Nevada is primarily reliant on the Colorado River for most of its water; however, groundwater is a critical component of the area's water resources, mainly to meet peak water demands during the hot summer (SNWA 2002). Secured water rights at poolfish habitats currently provide available groundwater resources to support the species. However, all of the groundwater rights held by local water agencies are currently not being utilized, and these agencies are exploring use of these rights as future options to meet continued demand (SNWA 2002). It is likely that the threat of significantly reduced, and limited, water sources caused by pressures exerted on the groundwater system to accommodate extensive population growth and development in southern Nevada could threaten the future existence of the poolfish.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The Pahrump poolfish is a nongame fish, and no commercial or recreational use of the species has been documented, nor is it anticipated. Scientific interest in this species has been limited to activities associated with tasks identified in the Recovery Plan. Section 10 of the Act allows for the issuance of permits for research, rehabilitation, and propagation. We issue recovery permits authorizing activities identified in the Recovery Plan, provided these activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of the poolfish.
        Since Corn Creek Springs and Shoshone Ponds Natural Area are open to the public without daily oversight by agency personnel, it is difficult for us and the BLM to protect the ponds from illegal human actions that may adversely affect the poolfish and their habitat. Most legal human activities in these areas, such as recreational fishing, have not been and are not a threat to the poolfish. Vandalism was historically a significant problem at Shoshone Ponds Natural Area. The initial introduction of poolfish to those ponds from Manse Spring was lost to vandalism in 1974 when the water source was intentionally turned off (M. Barber in litt. 1987). Vandalism continues to be a minor threat to the poolfish in this location, given that public access to the site is not monitored on a daily basis (B. Hobbs, pers. comm., 2002).
        C. Disease or Predation
        The remaining populations of poolfish possess low numbers of common external fish parasites (Heckmann 1987, 1988); however, neither these parasites nor any diseases are currently a threat to the poolfish.
        The effect of predation by the nonnative bullfrog on the poolfish population at Corn Creek Springs has been investigated. Analyses of bullfrog stomach contents indicated that bullfrog predation on poolfish is minimal (D. Withers, NDOW, in litt. 1985, 1986, 1988; J. Heinrich, NDOW, in litt. 1991). Bullfrogs also persist and predate on poolfish at the State Park, but do not represent a significant threat to the overall population (Heinrich 1991a; B. Hobbs, pers. comm., 2002).
        In 1975, the population of poolfish at Corn Creek Springs experienced a rapid reduction as a result of unauthorized introduction of nonnative mosquitofish. Close coordination between our agency, State agencies, and academic institutions resulted in the eradication, by chemical means, of the mosquitofish to alleviate competitive pressures on the poolfish (Selby 1977). For years afterwards, the poolfish at Corn Creek Springs remained a healthy and stable population.

        The stability of this population was again threatened when nonnative crayfish were illegally introduced into the ponds at Corn Creek Springs. Surveys first noted the presence of crayfish in 1993, and thereafter the poolfish population rapidly declined (NDOW 1999). Despite attempts to eliminate the crayfish, the poolfish population was extirpated by 1999. Nonnative common goldfish were first discovered in 1998 at Corn Creek Springs (NDOW 1999). The presence of the competing and predatory goldfish may have compounded the problem of an already depleted population of poolfish, possibly contributing to the demise of the population that year. Efforts by the DNWR, the NDOW, and volunteers to eradicate nonnative crayfish from Corn Creek Springs have been unsuccessful (NDOW in litt. 2001a). Thus, a new, isolated refugium for the poolfish was built at Corn Creek Springs in 2002 with introductions to the refugium from the State Park in June and July of 2003 (see Transplant History above) (NDOW in litt. 2003a).

        Illegal introductions of nonnative aquatic species to the habitats of poolfish have occurred historically and continue to pose the most significant current threat to the existence of this species. Currently, the populations at the State Park and Shoshone Ponds Natural Area have not been significantly affected by nonnative aquatic species. However, the recent loss of the population at Corn Creek Springs illustrates that the poolfish is vulnerable to extinction as a result of predation by aggressive, aquatic nonnative species. The introduction of nonnative species to the populations of poolfish at the State Park or Shoshone Ponds Natural Area could impose irreparable consequences.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

          Federal Protection: Upon being listed under the Act, the poolfish immediately benefitted from a Federal regulatory framework. This framework includes prohibition of take, which is defined broadly under the Act to include killing, injuring, or attempting to kill or injure; prohibition of habitat destruction or degradation if such activities harm individuals of the species; the requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species; and the requirement that we develop and implement a recovery program for the species. Poolfish continue to be protected by the provisions of the Act.
        Additionally, as previously discussed, the population of poolfish at the State Park will be conserved under the provisions of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued by us to the State for its HCP. This permit remains in effect until the year 2025.
        The sites where the poolfish currently resides have no connection to a navigable water. Therefore, it is unlikely that section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will provide any regulatory protection for this species.

          State Regulations: The State of Nevada classifies the poolfish as a fully protected fish species, further classified as endangered under Chapter 503.065 of the Nevada Administrative Code (2002). The State prohibits the capture, removal, or destruction of any protected species at any time, by any means, except under a special permit issued by the NDOW under Chapters 503.584-503.589 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) (2002). The Nevada Natural Heritage Program also ranks the poolfish as S1, meaning that in Nevada it is considered critically imperiled due to extreme rarity, imminent threats, and/or biological factors. However, this designation provides no legal protection in Nevada.
        A Nevada legislative finding in 1969 recognized the serious losses of native fish and wildlife in the State and provided a method for the State to conserve, protect, restore, and propagate selected species of native fish and wildlife and their habitats (NRS 2002). This finding and subsequent amendments included the authority for the State's Board of Wildlife Commissioners and State agencies it governs, specifically NDOW, to manage land in accomplishing the objectives of the program to conserve native fish and wildlife, including conserving, protecting, and assisting in propagating the poolfish.
        The NDOW is a cooperating partner with us for the ongoing management efforts to conserve this native fish species. In light of the events that have occurred since we proposed to reclassify the poolfish, the NDOW fully supports the current action to withdraw the proposed rule (Jon Sjöberg, NDOW, pers. comm. 2003).
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

        The low numbers of poolfish in its isolated habitats naturally make it vulnerable to risks associated with small, restricted populations. The elements of risk that are amplified in very small populations include: (1) Random demographic effects (e.g., skewed sex ratios, high death rates, or low birth rates); (2) the effects of genetic drift (random fluctuations in gene frequencies) and inbreeding (mating among close relatives); (3) natural catastrophes (floods, fires, droughts, etc.) at random intervals; and (4) deterioration in environmental quality (Shaffer 1987). However, the poolfish were believed to have been isolated for over 20,000 years in the Pahrump Valley (Soltz and Naiman 1978), and this natural evolutionary factor is currently an insignificant threat when compared with the historical modification of its natural habitat, introductions of nonnative, aquatic predators in its transplanted habitats, and reduced and limited water supplies.
        Summary of Findings
        In developing this notice, we carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Pahrump poolfish. Events subsequent to the proposed rule published in 1993 resulted in the extirpation of the poolfish population at Corn Creek Springs, although a small number of poolfish have recently been successfully introduced back into a new isolated refugium at Corn Creek Springs. Surveys in 2003 showed a significant decline in the population at Shoshone Ponds Natural Area, with the cause currently unknown. Therefore, only the State Park poolfish population remains stable. Thus, one of the main objectives for downlisting the species in the Recovery Plan, which is to have three stable populations of poolfish, has not been met.
        This species was historically threatened by habitat destruction and degradation, particularly from groundwater pumping which led to extirpation from its only known natural habitat. Currently, we remain concerned that this species is threatened by potential introductions of nonnative aquatic predators, and habitat destruction and loss due to reduced and limited water supply for the poolfish as a result of demands on limited water sources to accommodate extensive population growth and development in the arid desert of southern Nevada.
        Because the Pahrump poolfish occurs in only one stable population, and because all the poolfish populations are subject to various immediate, ongoing, and future threats as outlined above, we find that this species continues to be in imminent danger of extinction. Therefore, the poolfish meets the Act's definition of endangered and warrants continued protection as endangered under the Act. Threatened status would not accurately reflect the diminished status and threats to this species. Based upon the findings documented in this notice, we are hereby withdrawing the proposed rule published on September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49279), that proposed to reclassify the Pahrump poolfish from endangered to threatened.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from our Southern Nevada Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Amy LaVoie (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: March 8, 2004.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-7412 Filed 4-1-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH33
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of public hearings, availability of draft economic analysis, and reopening of comment period for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce that we will hold two public hearings on the proposed determination of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and that the comment period on this proposal is reopened. We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis of this proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for this species to hold the public hearings and to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in the final determination of the proposal.

          DATES:

            Comments: The comment period is hereby reopened until July 1, 2002. We must receive comments on the proposal and draft economic analysis from all interested parties by the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date will not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

            Public Hearings: The first public hearing on the proposal will be held June 4, 2002, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Erwin, TN, and the second, on June 6, 2002, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Bryson City, NC.

          ADDRESSES:
          The first public hearing will be held in the auditorium of the Unicoi County High School, 700 Mohawk Drive, Erwin, TN. The second public hearing will be held in the Swain County Administration Building, Superior Court Room, 101 Mitchell Street, Bryson City, NC.

          Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://southeast.fws.gov/hotissues or by writing to or calling the State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801; telephone 828/258-3939.
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to the State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Asheville Field Office, at the above address or fax your comments to 828/258-5330.

          3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
            john_fridell@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
          4. You may provide oral and/or written comments at either of the public hearings.
          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. John A. Fridell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Asheville Field Office (see
            ADDRESSES section) (telephone 828/258-3939, extension 225).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River drainage in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Historic and recent records indicate that the species was once fairly widely distributed throughout the upper Tennessee River system in western North Carolina, with the possible exceptions of the Hiwassee and Watauga River systems. In Tennessee, the species is known only from a short reach of the Nolichucky River above the town of Erwin in Unicoi County, TN. Presently, the Appalachian elktoe survives only in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Little Tennessee River system, Little River, and Pigeon River system in North Carolina; and, in portions of the Nolichucky River system in North Carolina and Tennessee. Numerous factors have been implicated as having contributed to decline and loss of populations of the Appalachian elktoe including pollutants in wastewater discharges; the runoff of sediment and other pollutants in poorly controlled runoff from land disturbance activities, and habitat destruction or alteration from impoundments, channelization, and in-stream dredging activities.

        We listed the Appalachian elktoe as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), on November 23, 1994 (59 FR 60324). On February 8, 2001, we published in the Federal Register a proposal to designate critical habitat for this species (66 FR 9540). The proposed designation includes 38.5 kilometers (km) (24.0 river miles (rm)) of the Little Tennessee River in Swain and Macon Counties, NC; 41.6 km (26.0 rm) of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson and Swain Counties, NC; 14.6 km (9.1 rm) of the Cheoah River in Graham County, NC; 7.5 km (4.7 rm) of the Little River in Transylvania County, NC; 17.8 km (11.1 rm) of the West Fork Pigeon River and the Pigeon River in Haywood County, NC; 22.6 km (14.1 rm) of the South Toe River and 26.4 km (16.5 rm) of the Cane River in Yancey County, NC; 5.9 km (3.7 rm) of the North Toe River and 34.6 km (21.6 rm) of the Toe River in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, NC; and 21.6 km (13.5 rm) of the Nolichucky River in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, NC, and Unicoi County, TN. The initial comment period on the proposal closed on April 9, 2001.

        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that a public hearing be held if requested within 45 days of the proposal's publication in the Federal Register. Two groups requested public hearings within the specified timeframe of the initial comment period. One group requested hearings in every county where critical habitat is proposed; the other group requested hearings in every watershed where critical habitat is proposed. We will hold one public hearing in each State where we have proposed critical habitat to accommodate both requests (see DATES and ADDRESSES sections).

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Public Comments Solicited

        We solicit comments on the draft economic analysis described in this notice, as well as any other aspect of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record at the public hearings is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the start of the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may have to be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments presented at the hearings or mailed to us. Our final determination on the proposed critical habitat will take into consideration comments and any additional information received by the date specified above. All previous comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted. Written comments may be submitted to the State Supervisor (see
          ADDRESSES section).

        Please submit electronic comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AH33” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact us directly by calling our Asheville Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Author
        The primary author of this document is John A. Fridell (see
          ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: April 26, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-12175 Filed 5-15-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 252
        [Docket DARS-2017-0001]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, Review of DFARS Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force is seeking input on Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) solicitation provisions and contract clauses that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. The comment period is extended three weeks.

          DATES:
          For the request for public comment published on June 20, 2017 (82 FR 28041), submit comments by September 11, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS-RRTF-2017-01, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS-RRTF-2017-01.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS-RRTF-2017-01” on any attached documents.
          • Fax: 571-372-6094.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: DFARS Subgroup RRTF, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100; or Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations. On June 20, 2017, DoD solicited such input from the public to inform evaluation of the DFARS solicitation provisions and contract clauses by the Task Force's DFARS Subgroup. The comment period is extended three weeks from August 21, 2017, to September 11, 2017, to provide additional time for interested parties to provide input.

        Although the agency will not respond to each individual comment, DoD may follow-up with respondents to clarify comments. DoD values public feedback and will consider all input that it receives. Furthermore, DoD may share inputs received in response to this notice with the “Section 809 Panel” (section809panel.org; SEC809@DAU.MIL) established under section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the acquisition regulations applicable to DoD with a view toward streamlining and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the defense acquisition process and maintaining defense technology advantage.

          Jennifer L. Hawes,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2017-16057 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [GN Docket No. 12-354; Report No. 3029]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for reconsideration; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register of October 2, 2015, a document concerning Petitions for Reconsideration in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding. This document corrects the DATES section and replaces “October 13, 2015” with “October 29, 2015” as the correct due date for replies to oppositions.

          DATES:
          Replies to opposition are due on October 29, 2015.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Powell, 202-418-1613; Email: paul.powell@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The FCC published a document in the Federal Register at 80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015, inadvertently setting October 13, 2015 as the due date for replies to oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration. This correction replaces the incorrect date with the correct date.

        In proposed rule 2015-25001 published at 80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015, make the following correction. On page 59705, in the first column, in the DATES section state that the “replies to the opposition are due on “October 29, 2015,” in lieu of “October 13, 2015.”

          Federal Communications Commission
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2015-26305 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 0909111273-91274-01]
        RIN 0648-XR09
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

           NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline (HG) for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast. This HG is proposed according to the regulations implementing the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and establishes allowable harvest levels for Pacific mackerel off the Pacific coast. The proposed total HG for the 2009-2010 fishing year is 10,000 metric tons (mt) and is proposed to be divided into a directed fishery HG of 8,000 mt and an incidental fishery of 2,000 mt.

          DATES:
           Comments must be received by October 29, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by 0648-XR09 by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
          CA 90802.
          • Fax: (562)980-4047, Att: Joshua Lindsay

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the report Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for U.S. Management in the 2009-2010 Fishing Year may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The CPS FMP, which is implemented by regulation at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I, divides management unit species into two categories: actively managed and monitored. The HGs for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates.

        During public meetings each year, the biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (Team), the Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the CPS Subcommitee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). At that time, the biomass, the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. This information is then presented to the Council along with HG recommendations and comments from the Team and Subpanel. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comments, the Council makes its HG recommendation to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The annual HG is published in the Federal Register as close as practicable to the start of the fishing season.
        For the 2009-2010 Pacific mackerel management season a full assessment for Pacific mackerel was conducted and then reviewed by a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel in May 2009. This most recent full assessment for Pacific mackerel estimates the current biomass to be 282,049 mt. Based on this estimated biomass, the harvest control rule in the CPS FMP produces an ABC of 55,408 mt.
        At the June 2009 Pacific Council Meeting, the Council reviewed the current Pacific mackerel stock assessment, biomass numbers, ABC and STAR Panel Report, as well as heard statements/reports from the SSC, Team and Subpanel. Although the assessment for Pacific mackerel was reviewed by a STAR Panel and was approved by the SSC as the best available science for use in management, concerns were expressed by all the advisory groups regarding the data sources that informed the assessment and the uncertainty in the assessment results. Taking into consideration these reports and statements, the Council adopted the most recent assessment for Pacific mackerel along with the calculated ABC, but recommended setting an overall HG for the July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 fishing season at 10,000 mt. The Council also recommended that 8,000 mt of this total HG be allocated for a directed fishery and 2,000 mt be set-aside for incidental Pacific mackerel landings in other fisheries should the 8,000 mt directed fishery HG be attained. Should the directed Pacific mackerel fishery attain landings of 8,000 mt, the Council recommends that NMFS close the directed fishery and establish a 45 percent incidental catch allowance when Pacific mackerel are landed with other CPS (no more than 45% by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), except that up to 1 mt of Pacific mackerel can be landed without landing any other CPS.

        Information on the fishery and the stock assessment can be found in the report Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for U.S. Management in the 2009-10 Fishing Season (see ADDRESSES).
        The harvest control rule formula in the FMP uses the following factors to determine the ABC:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel age one and above for the 2009-2010 management season is 282,049 mt.
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 18,200 mt.
        3. Distribution. The portion of the Pacific mackerel biomass estimated in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast is 70 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.
         4. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 18,200 mt that may be harvested. The FMP established this at 30 percent.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2009-2010 HG for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the harvest formula in the FMP. The harvest formula is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to determine the ABC, from which the HG is then derived.

          Pacific mackerel harvest is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast which primarily includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, jack mackerel and market squid. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 N. latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Sixty vessels are currently permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. These vessels are considered small business entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration since the vessels do not have annual receipts in excess of $4.0 million. This proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities. Therefore, there would be no disporportionate impacts on large and small business entities under the proposed action.
          The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific mackerel ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific mackerel ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
          During the 2007/2008 fishing year 6,200 mt of Pacific mackerel were landed with an estimated ex-vessel value of $900,000 and during the 2008/2009 fishing year approximately 4,000 mt were landed with an estimated exvessel value of $780,000. The proposed HG for the 2009/2010 Pacific mackerel fishing season (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) is 10,000 mt. If the fleet were to take the entire 2009/2010 HG, and assuming no change in the coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $200, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $2 million.
          The amount of Pacific mackerel caught each year depends greatly on market forces within the fishery, as well as the other CPS fisheries, and on the regional availability of the species to the fleet and the fleets' ability to easily find schools relatively close to port. If there is no change in market conditions (i.e., a lack in demand for Pacific mackerel product), it is not likely that the full HG will be taken during the 2009-2010 fishing year, in which case profits will be lower than if the entire HG were taken. Additionally, the potential lack of regional availability of the resource to the fleet can cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific mackerel that is harvested, in turn, potentially reducing the total revenue to the fleet.
          The annual average U.S. Pacific mackerel harvest from 2001/2002 to 2008/2009 is 5,584 mt with an average annual exvessel revenue of $929,419. Based on this catch and revenue history for Pacific mackerel over the last nine years NMFS does not anticipate a drop in profitability based on this rule, as the 2009/2010 available harvest (10,000 mt) is nearly twice the average catch during that time.
          In addition, the revenue derived from harvesting Pacific mackerel is only one factor determining the overall revenue of the CPS fleet and therefore the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. CPS vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including Pacific sardine, market squid, northern anchovy, and tuna, with the focus on Pacific sardine, which had an estimated ex-vessel of $14.5 million in 2008 and market squid which had an estimated ex-vessel of $26 million in 2008. Therefore Pacific mackerel is only a small component of this multi-species CPS fishery.
          Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities.

        As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: September 23, 2009.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-23463 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        46 CFR Part 10
        [Docket No. USCG-2018-0041]
        Draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is seeking public comment regarding the draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. The guidance in this Manual should assist medical practitioners, the maritime industry, individual mariners, and Coast Guard personnel in evaluating a mariner applicant's physical and medical status to meet the requirements of the merchant mariner medical certificate. This draft Commandant Instruction Manual incorporates and consolidates prior guidance on the medical evaluation of merchant mariners contained in several Coast Guard documents. The Manual includes guidance on the medical certificate and related processes, including procedures for application, issuance, and cancellation of the medical certificate.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted to the online docket, via http://www.regulations.gov, on or before January 14, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0041 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information about this document call or email Adrienne Buggs, M.D., United States Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing; telephone: 202-372-2357, email: MMCPolicy@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Participation and Comments
        We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notification, and all public comments, will be posted in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or the Coast Guard publishes any additional documents related to this notification of availability.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
        Background and Discussion of Draft Manual
        The Coast Guard provided guidance on the medical and physical requirements for merchant mariners in the Medical and Physical Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant Mariner Credentials, Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04-08, Commandant Publication (COMDTPUB) 16700.4; and in Part A of the Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, COMDTINST M16000.8 (Series) [MSM]. In the years since publication of NVIC 04-08, information received from public comment, medical appeals, and federal advisory committee recommendations highlighted the need for additional specificity and clarity in the medical guidance document. It also underscored the potential for confusion caused by having medical evaluation guidance contained in multiple guidance documents. For example, Part A of the MSM, Volume III, which has not been updated since 1999, may contain some information that conflicts with the guidance in NVIC 04-08. In response to these concerns, the Coast Guard began a series of revisions to the medical evaluation guidelines, published as Change 1 to NVIC 04-08, in June 2013, and Change 2 to NVIC 04-08, in April 2016.
        In addition to the revisions needed for improved clarity and specificity, the medical guidance also required new policy following publication of the Coast Guard's final rule on the Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements (78 FR 77795, Dec. 24, 2013). Specifically, the Coast Guard needed to develop new guidance to address the medical certificate and related processes required by these regulations. The Coast Guard provided this new guidance through a separate document, titled NVIC 01-14, Guidance on the Issuance of Medical Certificates. With the experience gained since the publication of NVIC 01-14, the Coast Guard has identified areas of the medical certificate policy that are in need of clarification, particularly with respect to some entry-level mariners, and procedures related to mariners who become unfit while in possession of a valid medical certificate. Rather than issuing a change to NVIC 01-14, the Coast Guard will include the revised medical certificate guidance with the medical evaluation guidance in a new policy document called the Merchant Mariner Medical Manual, also known as Commandant Instruction M16721.48.

        The draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual revises, updates and combines the medical evaluation guidance previously published in NVIC 04-08, Part A of the MSM, Volume III, and NVIC 01-14. The Coast Guard developed the draft Manual in consultation with experienced maritime community medical practitioners and industry stakeholders serving on the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) and the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC). The draft Manual reflects a synthesis of their recommendations and the medical requirements of Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 10, subpart C. Members of the public participated in the development of medical policy by providing comment and serving on working groups at the public meetings of MEDMAC and MERPAC. Additionally, the public had the opportunity to comment on drafts of policies contained in this Manual, and its predecessor, NVIC 04-08. See requests for comment on proposed policies regarding: Diabetes, cardiomyopathy, and sleep disorders (80 FR 8586, Feb. 18, 2015); Medications (80 FR 4582, Jan. 28, 2015); Seizures (78 FR 17917, Mar. 25, 2013); and Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (77 FR 55174, Sep. 7, 2012). The Coast Guard considered these public comments when developing this draft Manual.
        Changes made in this draft Manual seek to improve ease of use, clarify and update prior guidance, and provide more transparency to the regulated community. Major changes include (1) use of a single manual format; (2) clarification of medical certificate requirements for certain entry-level mariners; and (3) the proposed medical certificate cancellation policy.

          Manual Format: The Coast Guard reorganized the material into a manual format instead of a NVIC to improve utility and ease of use for the regulated community and others who reference the document. Additionally, in issuing a Commandant Instruction Manual, the name and number of the document will not change with every future issuance of the document, reducing the risk of confusion.

          Entry-level Mariners: This draft adds provisions that clarify confusion between 46 CFR 15.401(c), which requires a medical certificate in order to serve in a position requiring a merchant mariner credential (MMC), and other provisions in 46 CFR part 10 that indicate entry-level mariners do not require a medical examination except in certain circumstances (see, e.g., Table 1 to 46 CFR 10.239, which marks entry-level ratings “N/A” as to medical and physical exam requirements, and Table 1 to 46 CFR 10.302(a), which is silent as to medical requirements for certain entry-level mariners). The draft Manual will clarify that the Coast Guard does not require medical certificates for entry-level mariners on vessels not subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, who do not serve as food handlers.

          Medical Certificate Cancellation Policy: The guidance now includes the process to be followed when the Coast Guard receives information indicating that a medical certificate holder has developed a medical condition that poses significant risk of sudden incapacitation, or is taking medication that poses significant risk of impairment. This process includes procedures for cancelling medical certificates, rather than merchant mariner credentials (MMCs), for mariners who no longer meet medical certification criteria.
        The Coast Guard began issuing medical certificates in January 2014. The medical certificate is a certificate issued by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 10, subpart C, that serves as proof that the seafarer meets the medical and physical standards for merchant mariners. The medical certificate is not a credential (see definitions of medical certificate and credential in 46 CFR 10.107). Prior to the establishment of the medical certificate, a merchant mariner's certification of medical and physical fitness was embedded in the MMC. Under that system, if the Coast Guard received credible information that a mariner no longer met the medical and physical standards, the Coast Guard's only option was to declare the mariner medically incompetent and take suspension and revocation action against the MMC, the mariner's professional credential.
        However, not all medical concerns require revocation of the professional credential. In most cases, once it is determined that a medical certificate holder no longer meets the standards for medical certification, it is more appropriate for the agency to take action against the certificate that serves as proof of the mariner's medical fitness. The proposed medical certificate cancellation policy describes the procedures that the Coast Guard would use to cancel a medical certificate if it receives credible information that a medical certificate holder no longer meets the standards for medical fitness. The process involves providing notice to the involved mariner about the information received, and allowing them the opportunity to respond and provide additional information. The proposed policy preserves the mariner's right to reconsideration and appeal under 46 CFR 1.03-15, and, allows the involved mariner to continue to work until final agency action, except in cases where there is evidence of compelling and substantial risk of imminent harm. Furthermore, the policy allows the mariner to retain their MMC, simplifying their return to work when their medical condition improves and allowing them to continue to work in the industry in positions that do not require a medical certificate.
        Questions for Public Comment
        The Coast Guard requests public comment on the draft Medical Manual, with emphasis on its readability, clarity, and ease of use. We welcome suggestions on how the Manual can be improved.
        We are particularly interested in whether the draft Manual adequately addresses safety concerns in situations where the Coast Guard receives information indicating that a medical certificate holder has developed a medical condition that poses a significant risk of sudden incapacitation, or is taking a medication that poses a significant risk of impairment.
        This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 7101, and 46 U.S.C. 7302.

          Dated: November 5, 2018.
          J.G. Lantz,
          Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.

      [FR Doc. 2018-24502 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P